IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2002 Date of decision: 15.12.2008 Videsh Anand …. Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. ... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. R.P.Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Sh. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, dated 8.3.2002, whereby he has modified the judgement dated 6.10.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anni, District-Kullu, sentencing the accused under Section 353 I.P.C. The conviction of the accused has been upheld but the sentence of imprisonment of six months and find of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial Court has been modified to fine of Rs.1000/- only. This fine has admittedly been deposited. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 D.D.Justa, was working as Inspector, Weights and Measures. On 24th March, 1999, PW-1 was on official tour to Nirmand to enforce the provisions of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The accused is a general merchant in Nirmand. On 24th March, 1999 at about 11.30 a.m, when PW-1 went to the premises of the accused he found that one packet of KMI door fitting had not been packed in accordance with Section 39 of the Act and various discrepancies were pointed out. PW-1 wanted to book the accused under Section 63 of the said Act. Due to this the accused got angry and snatched the packet containing the KMI door fitting from PW-1 and alleged that PW-1 was a thief. He pushed PW-1 and his men 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment yes. out of the shop. He also threatened the PW-1. Thereafter, F.I.R was lodged against the accused on the basis of the complaint, Ext.PW-1/A, filed by PW-1 D.D.Justa. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the accused was sent up for trial. The accused denied that he has committed any offence. Thereafter the accused was tried. The prosecution led evidence. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. His conviction was upheld but the sentence was modified. The main argument is that the conviction is based on the sole evidence of PW-1 D.D.Justa and members of the official party and that no independent member of the public was associated with the investigation. It must be remembered that PW-1 is a Government Official and when he entered the premises of the accused others may or may not have been present. The persons in the neighbouring shop in all probability would not have actually witnessed the occurrence. The same could have been witnessed only by PW- 1 and the persons accompanying him. There is no reason to disbelieve PW-1. The conviction of the accused is based on the statement of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 who were accompanying PW-1. According to their version, when PW-1 inspected the business premises and found that one packet of KMI door fitting was not packed in accordance with law and he trying to take the same into possession, the accused snatched the same and pushed the complainant out of his shop. In cross-examination nothing substantial has been extracted and witnesses have reiterated the version given in examination-in-chief. The conviction of the accused is based on material evidence which I have also gone through. There is no illegality or impropriety in the proceedings carried out by both the courts below. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the Criminal Revision, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. December 15, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™