IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.533 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.07.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Subhash Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant: Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral) This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (1) Dharamshala dated 25.4.2001 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.4.2000 around 3.45 PM when HC Kaur Chand alongwith other police officials was on patrolling, they received a secret information that the respondent indulges in selling country liquor after purchasing the same from liquor vend. A Naka was laid after associating Up Pradhan Joginder Singh and Brij Lal Ward Panch and after some time the van was apprehended and 15 boxes each containing 12 pouches of illicit liquor were recovered from the possession of the Van being driven by the respondent. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent resulting in his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is clear from a perusal of the record that PW-6 HC Kaur Chand the Investigating Officer, was present there at the spot along with two Constables and one LHC when the Van was stopped and illicit liquor was recovered from it. The Investigating Officer had associated two independent and respectable witnesses, namely, PW-1 Brij Lal the Ward Panch and PW-2 Joginder Singh, Up Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat when he stopped the vehicle and recovered the illicit liquor. However, both these independent witnesses when examined in Court, turned hostile and denied that any illicit liquor was recovered in their presence from the Van being driven by the respondent. The trial Court was left with only the solitary statement of the Investigating Officer PW-1 HC Kaur Chand. He has simply stated that he arrested the accused on the next day and there is nothing specific to show as to how he had come to know that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent and how he identified him. The prosecution case rests solely on the solitary statement of the Investigating Officer as the two independent witnesses examined in the case, did not support the prosecution case and the three police officials who were present at the spot were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. The solitary statement of the Investigating Officer, not corroborated by any other independent witnesses or by the police officials when they were present at the spot, is not sufficient to hold that it can be relied upon so as to prove the guilt of the respondent was established beyond any reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussion, it follows that the findings of the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any doubt, cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. 21st July, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)