IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.135 of 2003 Date of decision : November 6, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Karun Pujni …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. Bipin C. Negi, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 26th August, 2002, of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, whereby respondent, who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence led during trial, is like this. On 30th December, 1998, a police party, headed by SI Nand Lal (PW-6) and comprising a number of police officials, including Constable Jeet Ram (PW-4), organized a Naka in village Sanwara, on National Highway No.22. A car, bearing registration No.CH-01S-2110, which was being driven by the respondent, reached the site of Naka, around 5 p.m. It was checked and found to contain two cartons, one containing 12 bottles and another containing five Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). One loose bottle was also recovered. Samples from three bottles in one carton and two bottles in the other and also from the loose bottle, were taken. The samples were separately sealed. Those samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ex. PX, reported that the contents of the samples were of IMFL. 3. Prosecution examined three witnesses to prove the search of the car of the respondent and recovery of 18 bottles of liquor. They are PW-4 Constable Jeet Ram, PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, an independent witness, and PW-6 SI Nand Lal. 4. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, the independent witness, did not support the prosecution version. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, with the leave of the Court. Statements of PW-4 Constable Jeet Ram and PW-6 SI Nand Lal are contradictory to each other in material particulars. For example, PW-4 Jeet Ram stated that the cartons were found lying near the front seat inside the car, but PW-6 SI Nand Lal stated that the same were recovered from the dickey of the car. Again, PW-4 Jeet Ram stated that search was conducted by HC Vijay Kumar, but PW-6 SI Nand Lal stated that it was he who conducted the search and recovered the liquor. Further, PW-4 Jeet Ram does not say that any independent witness had been associated, at the time of search, but PW-6 SI Nand Lal says that besides PW-5 …3… Sanjay Kumar, one more person, named Ramesh, had been associated as independent witness. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. November 6, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.