1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 328 of 1998. Date of decision: 9-5-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -versus- Payara Singh and another. . Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. A truck loaded with 300 cases of liquor (151 cases of Commando- XXX rum and 149 cases of Patiala No.1 Whiskey) was intercepted by PW11 Inspector/S.H.O. Jagan Nath of Police Station, Barotiwala and his team of Police Officers at a place called “ Kalu Jhanda” near Barotiwala on 30-1- 1993 at 10.00 a.m. Truck was being driven by respondent No.1 Pyara Singh. There were so many persons on board the truck, including respondent No.2 Pritam Singh, who could not be served with the notice of this appeal, because of his having not been found on the address given in the judgment and the memorandum of appeal. An application was moved for declaring him a Proclaimed Offender, which was registered as Cr.M.P. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 No. 402 of 99. This Court did not pass any order on the aforesaid application but ordered that the appeal be heard on merits to find out if any case is made out against respondent No.1. Leave to appeal was granted as against respondent Pyara Singh only vide order dated 7-9-1998. Pyara Singh respondent was called upon to produce papers in respect of liquor being carried by him in the truck. He produced a permit as also a challan. He also produced one Bill Exhibit-P1 issued by Patiala Distillery, Baddi in the name of Sunny Wine Traders of Ambala Cantt against which 302 cases of liquor were sold. As per detail given in Exhibit- P1, 115 cases of quarts, 25 cases of pints and 25 cases of nips of Patiala Whiskey had been sold. Permit Exhibit-P2 issued by the Excise Inspector Ambala was also produced in which reference to the quantity permitted to be carried was mentioned in terms of bulk litres and it was stated to be 2700 bulk litres. Detail of the quantity was not given. As per declaration given by the transporter, he had been carrying MFL quantity of liquor which is equivalent to 2700 bulk litre per permit Exhibit P2. Then there is a form D- 20A Exhibit P4 wherein the same detail of cases is given as in bill Exhibit- P1 and the total quantity mentioned is 2025 liter. The total quantity which was permitted to be carried was 2700 litres per permit Exhibit-P2. The quantity which was being carried was 2025 litres per Form D-20A Exhibit-P4 issued by the Excise Inspector of Baddi. It has come in evidence that without opening the cases, it could not be known whether cases contained quarts, pints or nips., Number of cases that was mentioned in the papers was 302. The number of cases found in the truck was 300, e.g., less than 302 which was mentioned in Exhibit P1 and P4. Respondent No.1. Pyara Singh was only the Driver of the truck. Neither he knew nor did he have any means to know whether the cases contained quarts only or some pints and nips also. 3 The Investigating Officer Jagan Nath (PW11) admitted that cases were got loaded in the truck from brewery by Excise Inspector of Baddi and Manager of brewery. That means it was the Excise Inspector and the Manager of the Brewery who were responsible for getting loaded the cases containing quarts in excess of the number of cases mentioned in Exhibit P1 and P4. In view of the above said position, we see no merit in the present appeal against acquittal of respondent No.1. Pyara Singh. Hence the same is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. (Surinder Singh), J. May 9, 2008. (bm)