CR.A/254/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 254 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PATEL MULJI MANJI AND ANOTHER ========================================= =Appearance : MR MAULIK G NANAVATI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant MR KB ANANDJIWALA for Opponent No.1 NANAVATY ADVOCATES for Opponent No.2 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 23/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) CR.A/254/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. Present Appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot at Gondal in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 1986 dated 20.12.1986, whereby the lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhoraji convicting the accused under Section 66 (1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentencing him to suffer three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused- respondents were caught red handed by the police party while they were taking out one box of English liquor bottles from the room to their motorcycle. He Trial Court, relying on the evidence of the raiding police officers, convicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The lower Appellate Court, however, set aside the said conviction mainly on the grounds that:- (i) No evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that accused No.3 had in fact brought a truck with liquor bottles from Maharashtra some days prior to the date of the incident. (ii) No evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that the present respondents purchased the liquor bottles from the original accused No.3. (iii) There is no independent evidence to show that at the time when the room was raided, the present respondents were present at the scene of the CR.A/254/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT offence. The panch witnesses, though supporting the prosecution case as regards carrying out the raid and breaking open the room lock, have categorically denied the presence of accused persons. Even in the panchnama, there is no mention of the accused persons being present at the scene. (iv) There is no evidence on record to show that the liquor bottles that were seized in the raid were the ones and that were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The covering letter under which the seven bottles that are alleged to have been sent to the Laboratory has not been produced on record. The officer who would have carried the bottles to laboratory has not been examined. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect that the bottles that were examined at the laboratory were in fact the bottles that were seized from the possession of the accused. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case. 4. We do not find any infirmity with the reasoning given by the lower Appellate Court in reversing the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. We are satisfied that there is no credible evidence on record to show that the bottles were in fact seized from the accused persons. Also, it is highly doubtful that the same bottles that were seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. CR.A/254/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT Therefore, the report of the Laboratory is of no consequence and can be of no assistance to the prosecution. Also considering the minor nature of the offence and the time that has elapsed since the date of the incident, we do not think it proper to interfere with the judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the lower Appellate Court. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) omkar