STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Pritam Singh who was accused before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sriganganagar, was acquitted of an offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the State has preferred this appeal against his acquittal.

(2.) THE fact of the case may be mentioned very briefly as the acquittal has been based upon the fact that the report of the Forensic Laboratory, does not make it clear that the sample examined and found to be liquor containing 49.37 under proof Ethyl Alcohol was the same which recovered from the possession of the respondent.

(3.) THE oral evidence in this case consisted of the statement of Ram Swaroop, S.H.O. of Police Station, Hindumal Kot and the constable who was present with him at that time. PW, Inder Singh is the Constable who took the sample of 250 ml. liquor recovered from the respondent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He has deposed that he carried the sample of 250. ml. liquor on 8 -1 -1976 and deposited it with the Forensic Science Lab in the same condition and obtained a receipt. He has no where deposed that the bottle was sealed Ex P. 4 which is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory says that the fiat glass bottle was properly sealed at the mouth with the impression of a seal corresponding with the seal impression forwarded and the seals were intact, but the forwarding letter which accompanied the sample does not bear any impression of the seal which was affixed on the sample. It is not enough to say that the bottle was properly sealed but it has to be shown that the impression of the seal was similar to the one forwarded by the authority sending the sample for chemical examination. As it cannot be said that the sample forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab was the same which was recovered from the respondent or it was for warded in the same condition in which it was recovered from the respondent and sealed in his presence, the report of the Chemical Examiner that the liquid sample contained liquor would not be enough to make it a case against the respondent. When it has not been shown that the liquor recovered from the respondent was properly sealed and forwarded to the Chemical Examiner in the same condition the accused cannot be convicted on the basis that the liquid was liquor.