IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.501 of 2002 Date of decision : April 6, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Man Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : M/s P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Man Singh, who was tried for an offence, under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, has been acquitted. 2. Allegations on which the respondent was put on trial were that on 10th June, 1996, at 7.00 p.m., when PW-3 Sant Ram, Head Constable, accompanied by one Constable and an independent witness, namely PW-1 Om Prakash, was present in Sultanpur locality of Kullu town, respondent was seen coming from the side of village Bhekhli with two cans and on seeing the police he turned around and tried to run away, but was overpowered and on checking it was found that the cans contained illicit liquor. Two samples (one from each of the two cans) were taken. The samples were sealed in two separate nips Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… with a seal, which produced the impression of English letter ‘X’. Case property was deposited with the Incharge Malkhana of Police Station, Sadar, Kullu. The two samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that the same were of illicit liquor. 3. Prosecution examined Sant Ram, Head Constable, as PW-3 and the alleged independent witness Om Prakash as PW-1, to prove the case. Trial Magistrate has disbelieved the prosecution story holding that PW-1 Om Prakash is stock witness of the police and that there were 20-25 other persons available on the spot but none of them was associated and this renders the prosecution story highly doubtful. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. I see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the trial Magistrate, for the simple reason that not only PW-1 Om Prakash appears to be a stock witness of the prosecution, because the witness very categorically stated that even on a day prior to the day of his appearance in the Court in the present case, he had appeared as a witness of the prosecution in another excise case, but is also under obligation of the police because he has admitted that he has his tea-stall near the Police Post, Akhara Bazaar and supplies tea to the police officials posted at the said Post. The alleged recovery was effected by PW-1 Sant Ram then posted at Police Post, Akhara Bazaar. …3… 6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not consider this to be a fit case for interference with the order of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 6, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J