IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2000 Date of decision: 28.2.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Sukinder Pradesh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Pt. Om Parkash, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-I, Dharamshala, dated 7.4.1999, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.11.1995, a police party was present in the area of Fatehpur Chowk in connection with patrolling and nakabandi and in the meantime one person came from Yol side having a bag on his shoulder. The police became suspicious and apprehended the said person and 12 bottles of liquor were 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 recovered from the bag. Two independent witnesses were associated. After investigation, the case was presented before the trial Court who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. Heard. The contention putforth by the learned Law Officer for the appellant was that the learned trial Court had relied upon minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and on that basis had acquitted the respondent which findings can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the learned trial Court had taken the view that the case of the prosecution was not proved which findings cannot be said to be perverse and as such, there is no merit in the appeal, which deserves to be dismissed accordingly. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned trial Court observed while referring to the testimony of PW-3 Rachhpal Singh an independent witness that there was seal only on one bottle from which the sample of nip was allegedly taken and there are no seal on 11 bottles also recovered at the same time. There was also some contradiction in regard to the fact as to whether the colour of the bag was green or pink as has come up in the testimony of PW-3 Rachhpal Singh. PW-3 had also stated that no personal search was conducted in his presence nor any recovery memo was prepared at that time. PW-5 Investigating Officer Om Parkash, H.C. admitted that he had mentioned 3 about the colour of the bag as pink and had not mentioned that it was of green colour as stated by him or the other witness. The learned trial Court had also referred to some minor contradictions in the statements of these two material witnesses regarding the time taken for conductinmg the investigation or the availability of the persons nearby. Keeping in view the contradictions, the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence and the contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was perverse calling for an interference by this Court. The mere fact that other view could also have been taken is not sufficient to hold that the appeal deserves to be allowed. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), February 28, 2007 Judge (BSS) 4