® "'fSS'i IWTIIE HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE AT BII-ASPUR AT CHHATHSGARH ^^^^w^2^^ ^t.e.s.c. NO.^;/ L) opaee^ CRIMIUAL APPEAL N0. OF 200V •.-> i-T APPELLANT /2€\A° ...$> •-SS RE8POIWBENV State of Chliattisgarh Through Excise Circle, Jaajgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) VBRSU8 Babla Panda, S/o Laxmidhar Panda, aged about 27 years. R/o Birgahiii Chowk, Distt. Janjgir-Cham.pa (CG) APPUCATIOM EOR GRAWT QP LEAVB TO APPBAL SBCnON 378^(31- AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL imDBR 8ECTIQS 378 itfOP THB CODB OP CRIMINAL PROCBDURE. 1973. ?. ^d31^3E—*->/T/T: fll EUE I'^^i^1^'^^^ mse. rT£V^Tirf^ Ca.M.P.NO. S79/"a00. vei-siis State 01 Chhatfasgsrh Babla Fazid Shri Praveea. Das, Dv. G.A. for tae Siaie/ap'olicant. 37S(3j &s 0V APPEAL USDERSECTION_37S1 (24.02.20101 Heard on. adltiission.. The present peution filed under SecTicn. 378(3} of flie Cr.P.C. is directed again.st the impugned order and judginent dated 22.11.2004 passed by fhe Cbief judicia^ Magistrate, JEmjgir, in Cr. Case N0. 2284/2004 whereby acquittuig fhe accused/respondent for fbe alleged off'ences under Sections 34 (l)(a) & 34 {2)(l)(a) oftlie Excise Act. 2. As per fhe case of fhe prosecution, upon receiviag secret uifonnation on 10.7.2004 house of the accused/responde&t was searclied aad 31.5 bulk litres of country made liquor was foiind in three bags. After coaipleting fbe &rmahties, tavestigati.on was doiie said fhe challan was fQed agaiast fhe accused/respondent. 3. In. support of its case, the prosecutioa has exaiaiaed three witiiesses naaiely Smt. Jaisbri Murthy (P.W.-l) Excise Sub In.spector, Naravan Prasad Patel (P.W.-2'i Excise Sua Inspector aad Devdutt Siilgh (P.W.-3) Manager of tbe Local tiquor contractor. Narayaii Prasad Patel (P.W.-2) has stated that whea he aad otiier witnesses reached the house of tiie accused, i ^^ '^SS^^ fhey cailed the accused/respondent and at that. poiiit of time crowd had gafhered tbere. Likewise, Devdutt Siiigh (P.W.-3) has also stated fh.at when he reached the spot, there was crowd. Excent these iwo \vitiiesses. no iiidependeiit witness Iias beea exam.ined by ttie prosecution. He has furtlier adiaitted the fact that tfae liquor which was seized was not sealed. 4. In view of fhe fact fhat proper procedure has not been followed by tlie state while sealing the sam.ples, no independent ^vitness has been examiaed by tiie prosecution despite tlie fact that the saine were available, the entire case of prosecution, becomes doutotful. 5. TIius after heartns counsel for TJ3.C parties and considerine: the laaterial available on record as weU as tlie elaborate judgnient unpugned passed by tlie Court below and not being foreetful of the setfled legal position that ia a revision agamst acquittal if two views are possible o.n fhe basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the'Trial Court takiag one view favoured the accused, reversicn of fia.din.gs of acquittal by fhe appeUate Court taking the ofher uossible view iato consideration is not penaissible, this Court is of the view fbat fhe judgiaent impugned acquittiag fhe resBondents/accused of fae offence as alleged is nist aiid proper aad no interi'erence therewith is warraated accordiagly ihe. leave as soilght for by ttie applicant/'State for registration of appeal agaiast fhe judginent of acquittsl is herebv refused. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge