IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2008. Date of Decision: 28.5.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Sukh Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl Advocate Genral.. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla dated 22.4.2008 whereby he has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 17- S/10 of 2005 and upheld the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in case No. 219/2 of 2004 whereby he has convicted the petitioner herein and co-accused Gattu alias Marchu for having committing offence punishable under Section 453 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61(1)a) of the Pun jab Excise Act as applicable to the State of H.P. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a 2 period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 453 read with Section 34 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment on each count. The sustentative sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case as set out is that one Saravjit Singh came to Shimla on 31.12.2003. He went to the house of his uncle Amarjit Singh which is in set No.24, Flat No. A-I, Vikasnagar, Shimla. He was accompanied by his four friends including one Vinod Kumar, PW2. On arrival at the flat, they found that the lock which was put by his uncle was not there on the main door. They somehow managed to enter inside the premises and found that six cartons of country liquor were kept near the bath room. They immediately went to the police station and reported the matter. The police came to the spot and at this stage in the presence of the police and the aforesaid witnesses, it was found that co- accused Gattu alias Marchu was removing the liquor cartons to the adjoining flat No.23 from flat No.24 and that the present petitioner/accused Sukh Lal was receiving the 3 said liquor cartons in flat No.23. On the basis of this, the FIR was lodged, investigation done and case put up. Both Saravjit (PW1) and Vinod Kumar (PW2) have clearly identified the petitioner/accused Sukh Lal as the person who was receiving the liquor which was being transferred from flat No.24 to flat No.23. The main point raised in this revision petition is that the evidence of Saravjit and Vinod Kumar cannot be relied upon since no local witnesses from the area were associated with investigation. Further there are many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. As far as the main point in issue is concerned, as to whether there was liquor in flat No.24 and whether the same was being transferred from flat No.24 to flat No.23 by co- accused Gattu alias Marchu and was being received by the petitioner/accused Sukh Lal, there is no contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. The contradictions are minor in nature and in respect of the place where the recovery memos and other documents are alleged to have been prepared. At best the said documents were not prepared at the spot but in the police station. This by itself is not a sufficient ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. There is no reason not to rely on the evidence of the PWs Saravjit 4 Singh and Vinod Kumar. Though suggestion has been put to them that there is some litigation between the uncle of Saravjit Singh and the accused, no such material has been placed on record. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that these witnesses were deposing falsely. Both the courts below have found the accused guilty on the basis of evidence and have reached a pure finding of fact. There is no jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the learned courts below and I am satisfied with the correctness thereof. I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly rejected. May 28, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.