NATHKI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mst. Nathki has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 15-1-1974 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1973. The petitioner was convicted on 22-9-1973 under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 1950 by the Excise Magistrate, Jodhpur, in criminal case No. 221/1972 and was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. She preferred an appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and it was dismissed by him.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that Bhim Singh Excise Inspector received an information on 15-3-1970 and in consequence thereof he made a raid at the house of the petitioner and found her distilling Illicit liquor ; at that time the utensils consisting of pipe, tube of iron, Tagari etc. were set up for the purpose of distilling liquor and she was found distilling illicit liquor. The wash was also found there and some illicit liquor which was distilled was also found. Samples were taken from both illicit liquor and wash and were sealed in the spot on the presence of the Motbirs. The Petitioner was challaned under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. After trial, she was convicted and sentenced by the Excise Magistrate as aforesaid and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on 15-1-1974.

(3.) The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence that the samples were sealed on the spot and the samples remained in safe custody and were not tempered with till they reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner. In the absence of such a proof, no conviction is possible. Further, there is also no proof whether the samples examined by the Public Analyst vide his report Ex. P. 4 were the same which were taken by the Excise Inspector on 15-3-1970 or that they were taken at any other time. Without this strict proof the report Ex. P. 4 cannot be read as evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the State Vs. Motia and others, ILR (1953) 3 Raj. 655. , Ratanlal Vs. State, 1966 RLW 451 , Maheshwar Prasad Vs. State of Raj., I. L.R. (1969) 19 Raj. 918 and Het Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, W. L. N. (U.C.) 1974 p. 157.