IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2001. Decided on : 9.7.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Roop Lal . ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The respondent was prosecuted in criminal case No.31/3 of 1997 under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, District Solan, H.P. and was acquitted on 21.5.2001. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial Court necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that on 30.3.1997, ASI P.S. Darlaghat namely Shri Hari Ram was present at bus stand Darlaghat along with other police officials in connection with routine patrolling. At about 2.30 p.m. , the accused appeared there with a bag on his shoulder. On suspicion, he was apprehended and search of the bag in possession of the accused was conducted. On search, it was found containing 14 halves of ‘Boxer Whisky’. ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? No. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up in the Court. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on 21.5.2001. Thus, this appeal by the State. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 21.5.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 21.5.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. The prosecution in order to prove the recovery of the bottles had relied upon the statements of PW-1 Rishi Ram and PW-3 Jarnail Singh. These two witnesses are police officials. The prosecution had not associated any independent witness during the course of investigation though the houses of Om Parkash, Shankar and Rama Devi were in the vicinity of the spot. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-3 and PW-6 with regard to the time when the respondent was nabbed. PW-3 has stated that the respondent was caught at 6.00 A.M. in the morning. However, PW-6 has deposed that the accused was caught at 4.30 A.M. PW-6 has stated that only he had caught the accused. However, PW-1 has deposed that they all chased the accused and nabbed him. The trial Court on the basis of the correct appreciation of evidence has acquitted the respondent. This Court will not interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail/surety bonds are discharged. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. July 9, 2008. (GR)