1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 123 of 2001. Judgment reserved on: 22.07.2008. Date of Decision: July 28, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Surjeet Singh. Appellant. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. ______________________________________________________________ Surjnder Singh, J. The petitioner herein was convicted by the learned trial court, for allegedly having in possession of 8 bottles of country liquor of ‘‘Himfed No.1’’ Brand, without any permit and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed his conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge and now the present revision petition has been filed challenging the findings of guilt passed by both the courts below, on the grounds that no independent witnesses were associated by the police at the time of search and seizure and further that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and two views are possible and the benefit of it should have been given to him. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 In brief, prosecution case is, PW6 HC Jia Lal, on 15.5.1997, was present at Gullerwala alongwith HHG Dalip Singh. The petitioner came from the opposite side having a bag hang on his shoulder. When on seeing police, he tried to escape, the Head Constable aforesaid became suspicious and apprehended the petitioner. On being asked, he disclosed his identity. The search of his bag was conducted by HC Jia Lal and he recovered eight bottles of country liquor of `Himfed No.1’ Brand. The petitioner could not produce any licence/permit. Out of the eight bottles, he took the sample from four bottles in four nips for analysis. The nips as well as remaining four bottles were sealed with seal impression ‘K’ and after taking the sample of seal separately, the seal was handed over to PW5 Badan Singh. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, it was deposited with PW1 HC Sohan Lal in the Malkhana. The samples were sent through PW3 Constable Bhalku Ram to CTL Kandaghat on 25.6.1997 for its examination. On getting the report Ex.PW1/D, the case was presented in the court for the trial of the petitioner. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the petitioner was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor. At the end of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced and his appeal was also dismissed, as aforesaid. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Law Officer, for the state and have meticulously examined the evidence on record to find out whether the courts below have committed any error of law while appreciating the evidence on record. 3 PW6 HC Jia Lal has corroborated the prosecution case in toto. He has stated that except them there was no other person present on the spot when the recovery was made as stated above. PW2 HHC Dalip Singh, who was accompanying PW6 HC Jia Lal has also made the similar version. Nothing material could be extracted in their cross-examination but for that PW2 stated that the documentation was done in the police post, which according to PW6 was only one kilo meter away from the spot. It is proved that the case property alongwith the sample seal was deposited with HC Sohan Lal (PW1). This fact has been testified by him in the court and he further stated that the samples were sent through Constable Bhalku Ram (PW3) for analysis which fact was corroborated by PW3 and his version was not disputed in his cross-examination. The chemical report Ex.PW1/D establishes the fact of deposiing the sealed samples by C. Bhalku Ram on 25.6.1997 which tallied with the sample seal and the samples on analysis as per report Ex.PW1/D were found that of country liquor. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, the recovery of more than the permissible quantity of two bottles of the country liquor stand proved from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent witness was associated during the search and seizure, therefore the entire recovery is doubtful is absolutely incorrect, because there is no requirement of law to associate the independent witness when the recovery is made from an open place, nor there is anything for doubting the version of the official witnesses as they stood well in their cross-examination. The official witnesses were not proved to have any malice or ill will against the petitioner, therefore, their testimonies can be 4 acted upon. Since I do not find any infirmity in their statements and illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge as such, the revision petition is dismissed. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 28, 2008. (Pds)