N THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2000 Date of decision : 8.5.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Sohan Lal Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, dated 13th March, 2000, in case No. 15/3 of 1999 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 30.3.1999 the police party headed by SHO Jagdish Chand was on patrolling and excise duty. The police party was traveling in Maruti Van No. HP-02-3374 being driven by one Kashmir Singh. According to the prosecution the accused was traveling on a scooter No. HIB-4323 and also carrying one gunny bag. The police official became suspicious and stopped him and his personal search was conducted. It was found that the respondent was carrying 48 pouches of country liquor ‘Patiala Orange’ without any permit. Sample was taken and sealed and sent to the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat for analysis. Documentation was done and after investigation the challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and trial was held. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to substantiate to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though the police officials have supported the prosecution case, the driver of the Maruti Van, in which the police party was allegedly travelling, namely, Kashmir Singh, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution at all. Even in cross-examination after being declared 3 hostile nothing substantial has been gathered from him. The learned trial Court on the perusal of the evidence before it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was searched or that 48 pouches of country liquor were recovered from him. The trial Court in view of the conflicting statement of the witnesses has held that the doubt has been created in his mind and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the police officials. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record of the case. The statement of the independent witness Shri Kashmir Singh does not support the prosecution at all. He and the police official had given conflicting version with regard to the occurrence. The independent witness who admittedly was present has not supported the prosecution at all. This casts a doubt on the prosecution case. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the order of the learned Court below. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. May 8, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™ 4