IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2002. Date of decision:29.9.2008 Tek Bhadhur .. ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu dated 1.1.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2001 whereby he has upheld the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu dated 1.11.2001 in Criminal Case No.286-1/99 convicting the petitioner of having committed an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months and pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 21 days. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.7.1999 ASI Kanwar Singh (PW-7), Incharge of Police Post Manikaran along with some other police constables had gone to village Choki. They received information …2… that the accused was dealing in illicit liquor. Independent witness Anant Ram PW-2 and one Gopal Krishan were associated with the raiding party and house where the accused was residing was raided. On checking of the residential premises one plastic can was recovered which contained 5 liters of illicit liquor. One sample nip of the same was taken. Both the plastic can and sample were sealed with seal-K and the specimen seal impression Ext.PW-7/A was entrusted to the independent witness Anant Ram. Thereafter, a ruqua was sent on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW-7/B was registered. The case property was first deposited with MHC Lal Singh PW-4. Thereafter, the sample was sent on 12.8.1999 through PW- 1 Sant Ram for analysis to the Chemical Examiner who opined that the sample contained alcohol. On this basis a challan was filed. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it convicted the accused. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. The main contention of Sh.Ramesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statement of the independent witnesses does not corroborate the police witnesses. According to him, the police witnesses have said that they left Manikaran in a bus whereas according to the independent witnesses Anant Ram, he had boarded a police vehicle at Kasol. …3… I have gone through the statements of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer PW-7 in his statement has stated that they proceeded in bus till Dhankri and thereafter they were walking. Then they met a Project Jeep and boarded the same and then went towards village Choki. No question has been put to the Investigating Officer as to where exactly they boarded the Project jeep. Admittedly Dhankri is only at a short distance of about 2-3 k.ms from Kasol. Anant Ram has supported the prosecution case to the hilt in respect of the recovery. The discrepancy, if any, is with regard to the place where he boarded the Project vehicle. There is no inconsistency in his statement as far as the recovery is concerned. Sh.Thakur also urged that according to the witnesses a large number of Bahadurs were living in the same house and it has not been proved that the liquor was in the conscious possession of the petitioner. This contention is also without any merit. No doubt, the witnesses have stated that a number of Bahadurs lived in the same house but it is clear from the statement of all the witnesses that accused was living in a separate room. Therefore, the liquor found in his possession could not be said to be the liquor of any other person. Both the Courts below have come to a finding of fact that the accused is guilty. This finding is based on a proper reading of the evidence led before the trial …4… Court. These findings call for no interference in exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is without merit and is rejected. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled and he is directed to undergo the sentence imposed upon him. September 29 , 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge