IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 375 of 2003 Reserved on: June 25, 2010 Date of Decision : August 10, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant v. Hardev Singh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. For the respondent: Mr. Raghu Nandan Chaudhary, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence which is alleged to have been committed on 5.1.2001, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 6.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, Distt. Kangra, in Crl. Case No.90- III/2001, titled as State of H.P. vs. Hardev Singh, the accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.1.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. ASI Prakash Chand, In-charge, Police Post, Ranital, along with HC Shanti Swarup, C. Krishan Kumar and C. Gurmit Singh, was on patrol duty near village Darkata. ASI 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Prakash Chand received a secret information that accused Hardev Singh who runs a vegetable shop in village Trippal, also sells liquor to his customers in an illegal manner. Rukka (Ext.PW-6/A) was sent through C. Gurmit Singh to Police Station, Haripur, where F.I.R. No. 4/2001 (Ext.PW-6/B) under Section 61(1)(14) of the Excise Act was registered. Two independent witnesses S/Sh. Mehar Chand and Babu Ram were asked to join the investigation before the shop was searched. During search huge quantity of liquor was recovered. There were 14 pouches of country made illicit liquor Patiala Orange and 21 pouches of country made illicit liquor Sirmaur No.I. The accused could not show any permit or authority for possessing the same. Two samples from the contraband were taken and remaining pouches were put in the card board box (Ext.P-1) and sealed with seal ‘H’ and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. Specimen impression of the seal (Ext.PW-8/A) was separately taken and handed over to Sh. Mehar Chand. The sealed samples were sent for chemical analysis and report (Ext.PW-8/D) was taken on record. 3. With the completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial and the accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses and the statement of the accused under 3 Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence. 4. Sh. Mehar Chand (PW-1), who is the Pradhan of the area has not supported the prosecution at all. He was declared hostile and inspite of his having been cross-examined, nothing material has come out in his statement linking the accused to the charged offence. 5. Sh. Babu Ram (PW-2) is an Ex-police official. His testimony, in my considered view, cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that there is prior animosity between him and the accused. Further, he has shown ignorance of the fact that the accused used to serve liquor in his shop to the general public. 6. Further, there are some contradictions in the version given by this witness as also ASI Prakash Chand (PW-8). Their statements are not sufficient enough to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. 7. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband seized by them. Sh. Mehar Chand has denied having sealed the sample. None has come forward to state that the sealed sample was not tampered with while it was in the safe custody of the police officials. 8. Inspite of the fact that it has come on record that two shops adjoining to the premises of the accused were open at the 4 time of the alleged incident no independent witnesses were associated. 9. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. August 10 , 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.