IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 185 of 2003. Decided on: April 30, 2010. _____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Nand Lal. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (oral): 1. The State has felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No.29- NL/10 of 2001, decided on 13th February, 2003, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.62/3 of 2000 dated 20.10.2001, was set- aside. 2. Heard and gone through the record of the case. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 28th November, 1999, PW2 Desh Raj, the then SI/SHO, Police Station Ramshehar was on patrolling duty in the Bazar at Ramshehar. The respondent was spotted near the rain shelter. On seeing the police, he got scared, which arose suspicion, as such, he was nabbed and the search of his baggage was conducted. Police recovered eight pouches of country liquor (Himfed No.1). Out of the recovered pouches, four nips from four pouches were taken as samples. Remaining liquor of the pouches from where the sample was taken, decanted into the bottles. The sample nips and the bottles were sealed with seal impression “H” and the case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P1, in the presence of PW1 Narain Dutt Shastri a JBT teacher and Gopal Kishan. Police prepared the site plan and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The case property was deposited with MHC in the Police Station and thereafter four sample nips were sent for - 3 - the analysis to CTL Kandaghat, through PW3 Lady Constable Sanju Bala. The laboratory confirmed that the contentions of the samples were that of “country liquor”. 4. On receipt of the report, the challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of the trial, respondent was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with the default clause, which was successfully assailed by the respondent before the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after examining the record, found that there was material contradiction, with respect to the link evidence and also observed that one independent witness examined by the prosecution, namely PW1 Narain Dutt Shastri, did not support the case of the prosecution, as such, allowed his appeal and set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed - 4 - by the learned trial Court. It is this judgment of acquittal, which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. PW2 SI Desh Raj did not state that the case property alongwith sample of seals was deposited with the MHC in the Police Station. 7. PW6 MHC Karam Singh stated that on 25.11.1999, a ruqa was sent for the registration of the FIR, on which basis of which FIR was registered in the Police Station, but this is a case pertaining to 28th November, 1999. He further testified that four sample nips were sent on 22nd December, 1999 through a lady constable PW2 Sanju Bala for its deposit in CTL Kandaghat, whereas, she stated that the sample was entrusted to her on 20th December, 1999. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses with regard to production of the case property in the laboratory and further the road certificate vide which the case property was deposited in CTL, Kandaghat did not find in the light of the day during the trial of the case, as - 5 - such the case ought to fall doldrums. These facts were before the learned trial court, which were properly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for basing his findings for acquittal, which are borne out from the record and further the alleged independent witness PW1 Narain Dutt has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. In these circumstances, I find that the appeal as filed by the State is without any merit, as such dismissed. 9. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. 10. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 30, 2010. (Pds)