IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 212 of 2003 Decided on: 10.5.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Swarn Singh ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable, under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the state of Himachal Pradesh, as also under Section 181 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not having the valid documents of the vehicle. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted under the excise offence but convicted under the Motor Vehicles Act to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 181 and Rs. 100/- under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with the default clause. Against the conviction and sentence, no appeal has been filed but the State challenged the acquittal of the respondent under the excise Act. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Heard and gone through the record of the case. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.5.2002 around 2.00 p.m. the police party headed by HC Sandeep Kumar while patrolling in their official Jeep intercepted the truck in question at village Khirdi. It was stopped and searched. The police found the truck loaded with 25 Cartons of country liquor. In all the 25 cartons there were 300 pouches of country liquor of the brand Sirmour No. 1 and Patiala Orange. The respondent failed to produce permit. Therefore, three pouches of each of the brands were separated, sealed with seal impression ‘S’ and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW3/A. 4. Rukka Ext.PW5/A was sent to the police station for the registration of a case on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW2/A was formally registered. Site plan was also prepared. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. Finding a case under the aforesaid Sections, the challan was presented before the Court and the respondent was also charge-sheeted for the said offences. 6. During the trial he produced permit Ex.DW2/A. Believing the defence version, the respondent was acquitted under the Excise Act. State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal. Hence, this appeal. 7. It is an admitted case that the said truck was intercepted by the police party with the aforesaid consignment. But, however, the place of the interception of the truck at the place known as “Khirdi” is denied. According to the defence version the said truck was stopped at “39 miles” while 3 transporting the aforesaid consignment from L-13-A Shahpur to their retail shop L-14 at “Harnera”. In defence the respondent produced the permit Ext.DW2/A with respect to the aforesaid 25 cartons which otherwise also stands connected with the consignment which was being transported. Now, only question remains whether the truck in question was intercepted at a place which was not covered under the permit. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record I find that the truck in question was intercepted 2 K.M. short on a place known as “Khirdi” as per the case of prosecution having permit to transport the consignment. It is not disputed that the respondent was not having his L-14 liquor vend at “Harnera” to which place the truck had to go. Respondent denied the fact of the interception of the said truck as alleged by the prosecution. The permit in question does not specify the route. The truck was hired from the union as stated by the DW1. 9. In view of the above, the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent beyond doubt. The view of the learned trial Court cannot be faulted, as such, the appeal is without any merit. Hence, dismissed. (Surinder Singh), J. May 10, 2010 (vs)