IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 249 of 2003. Date of Decision: 14th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Chuni Lal and another ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Vipan Rajta, Advocate vice Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) Learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.415/3 of 1998, decided on 25th February, 2003, acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh and also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. On 28th July, 1999 at about 5.10 p.m., ASI Sohan Lal, the then Incharge of Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla received a secret information that the respondents had kept huge quantity of liquor in the rented store/room in village Kanana (Bharari) near Multani Kothi. Considering the said information as authenticated ASI aforesaid informed Sub Inspector Ram Lal on V.H.F. set and also called PW-1 Satish Gupta, E.T.I. All of them alongwith the other police officials proceeded to the spot. They included PW-4 Sarabjit Singh as independent witness and reached the spot. They noticed that some cartons and gunny bags were put on fire and smoke season was created so that the offenders could escape. They extinguished fire, but did not find anybody inside the premises except 8400 pouches of country liquor of different brands, which were taken into possession after taking the samples. The case property was sealed with seal impression “S”. 4. Rukka was sent for the registration of the FIR. Burnt materials were also taken into possession. Police took pains to take the photographs. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. Samples were sent for analysis. After three days, the respondents were arrested. 5. The owner of the premises who is alleged to have rented it out to the respondents, was not examined. Independent witness PW-4 Sarabjit Singh did not support - 3 - the case of the prosecution. Thus on the strength of above evidence there is nothing to connect the respondents with the offence charged. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents is well founded, as such no interference is called for. Appeal is without merit, hence dismissed. 5. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. May 14, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)