STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor in this state appeal, in a case in which one bottle of illicit liquor is said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. The charge sheet was filed in the court of the learned Magistrate on May 16,1977. There were number of adjournments for the evidence of the prosecution and on October 13,1980, neither the A.P.P. nor the complainant was present. The learned Magistrate, therefore, under section 256 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint and acquit the accused.

(2.) IT appears from the grounds of appeal that whosoever drafted the ground in the office of the Government Advocate, did not care to go through the record. The grounds on which the leave was sought is that a charge sheet has been framed and part of the prosecution evidence had been recorded. The case being warrant case the same could not have been dismissed for want of presence of the complainant. IT appears that the charge sheet has only been filed against the accused under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (for short the Act).An offence under section 4(2) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to Rs. 5000/- though the minimum sentence prescribed is six months imprisonment and a fine not less than Rs. 2000/-. A perusal of the record shows that the case being a complaint case no charge was framed or could be framed before recording some evidence for the prosecution. On the second day, the learned Magistrate had adjourned the case for the evidence of Manoharlal, Inspector Excise. Thus no charge was framed and it was not correctly recorded in the ground seeking leave of the court that a charge had been framed and evidence had been recorded. The file shows that not a single witness of the prosecution has been examined. Thus the very ground on which the leave was granted is not existent,