IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.542 of 2002 Date of decision : April 30, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Bhagat Singh @ Bittu …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge ( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 4th February, 2002, passed by the trial Magistrate in a case, under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby respondent Bhagat Singh, who was charged with and tried for allegedly being in possession of 48 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution version, as per record, was that on 18th November, 1996, on prior information, PW-9 SI Ranjeet Singh intercepted Gypsy No.HP-51-0052 at Saproon (Solan) and found that 48 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were being carried in two bags. Samples were taken out from six of the 48 bottles. Those samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… who opined that contents of the samples were of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-9 SI Ranjeet Singh, two Constables, namely PW-1 Shyam Lal and PW-2 Dayal Chand, and two independent witnesses, namely Davinder Singh (PW-6) and Inder Balia (PW-8). Independent witnesses turned hostile. All the three police officials stuck to the prosecution version. Trial Court acquitted the respondent, on the ground that the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution story. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the appellant as also the learned counsel representing the respondent. 5. Though the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate that the respondent cannot be convicted, on account of independent witnesses having not supported the prosecution version, is not correct, because the requirement of law is only for association of independent witnesses (who, in this case, were associated) and not that such witnesses must support prosecution’s version. 6. However, from the record, I do find a circumstance, favourable to the respondent. The same is that there is no evidence on record suggesting that specimen impressions of the seal, used in sealing the six sample nips, was sent to the Chemical Examiner for comparison with seal impressions on the nips. Undoubtedly, there appears a certificate on the report of the Chemical Examiner, to the effect that the impressions of …3… the seal on the nips tallied with the specimen impression of the seal, but neither the Muharrar Head Constable, who dispatched the samples to the laboratory nor the Constable, who carried those samples and delivered the same at the laboratory, testified that the specimen impression of the seal had also been carried. Not only this, even in the docket, signed by the SHO, by which the sample nips were dispatched to the laboratory, does not bear a mention about the dispatch of specimen impressions of seal. 7. Statement of PW-9 SI Ranjeet Singh, who allegedly checked the vehicle and recovered the liquor and then took out samples from six of the 48 recovered bottles, shows that specimen impressions were taken only on one piece of cloth. That piece of cloth was produced in the Court. The same is Ex. PA. This piece of cloth, containing specimen impressions of the seal, was never sent to the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PX, cannot be said to have been linked with the recovered 48 bottles, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 30, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J