1 LNTHEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR^ CHHATTISGARH 'O^T:S^ C'^z^sa G,G>^ lo^ .^ . ICrCNo: Of 2001 •^ Wff^ .^/ /'••' ^ / ."~ ^' J:l// ^PSLLANT / / ^- ^11 (Prosecution) ^ ^ Cri.A.No. Of 2001 The State of Chhattisgarh ThroughiDistrict Magistrate Janjgir-Champa Versus NON-APPLiCAJMT (Accused) Rajkumar S/o Kapoorchand aged about 42 Yrs., R/o Sakti, P.S.Sakti Distt.Janjgir-Champa ^ APPLiCATSON FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTSON 378(3) AND IVSEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 11) GF THE CODE OF CRIiVIINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 AGA8NST THE JUDGIVSENT AND FINDiNGS OF ACQUITTAL iN Cr. APPEAL No.3/200t-DATED 18.1.2001 BY ADDL.SESSJONS JUDGE, SAKTI, IN BYSHRi C,P.SUIVIAN ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2001. APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT Rajkumar son of Kapoorchand. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for the appellant/State. Shri Vipin Punjabi counsel for the respondenVaccused CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (11 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (11.02.2010) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18.1.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2001 setting aside the judgment dated 27.11.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti convicting the respondenVaccused for the offences punishable under Sections 34 and 36 of the Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.1994 officials of Excise Department conducted a raid in the shop of respondent/accused situated at Railway road, Sakti and found Dil Water contained in 40 bottles (total quantity comes to 7000 ml) along with 20 empty bottles of the same. Panchnama Ex. P-1 was prepared and as the respondent/accused failed to produce any licence for the articles seized, an offence under sections 34 and 36 of the Excise Act was registered against him. 3. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the respondenVaccused was also recorded p Sjseq 941 uo ieL|i eouspjAe siq ui peieis seq (z-AAd) Aapuej •S-0 -epiije pezies eqi LUOJJ iuiq Aq i|9j SBM IIOLUS 9>|i| jonbi| SLUOS pue Qouesejd si^ ui epeuj se/w sjnzies ieqi peieis seq (l.-AAd) 19led 'TX '(Z-Md) Jopedsui 9810x3 'AGpued •S"3 PUB (|<-AAd) lueuuijedea 8SIOX3 9L|i ui 9|qeisuoo '|8ied "I'X p lueiuaieis eLfi si uoiinoesojd 9qi Aq p8i08||oo eouepiAe A|UO 941 -uoiinoQSOjd Q{\} Aq peuiiuexQ ueeq iou ©Aeq ueMii |e-| lejeqg pue sea I^IA A|8Lueu (.-d "xg euueu^oued p sesseuijM IBLII SMOLIS OS|B pjooe^ •jonbi| SBM 11 ieqi 6uiAes ijodej eqi peyiLuqns seq e^ lueujijedep eqi ui ue^ei SUIUIBJI pue Qoueuadxe siq jo siseq 941 uo ieqi peieis seq (z-AAd) Aepued •S'O A|eueu jopedsui espxg eqi Aq peuiujqns ijodej ^inbuj 9L|i ui lj8A08jo|/\i 'jonb!| SBM pszies A|p868||e spiye eqi ieqi pies eq IOUUBO }\ ijodej qons Aue p eouesqe ©qiui pue uoneu.iLuexe 160.101940 joj iues ueeq iou SBL| pesnooe/iuepuodsej Q^} p uoisssssod 941 LUOJJ pezjes 8|0!ije peBeiie eqi ieqi je9|o si 11 PJOOQJ eqi LUOJJ '9 •lueLuBpnf p8u6ndLui 941 sijoddns pesnooe/siuepuodsej eqi JQJ |8supoo pueq jeqio 941 UQ 'Z •jojje |e68| 9ABJ6 e ui ^QS}\ pepuei seq }\ usqi 01 leuinboe BuipjeMe Aqajeqi pue uonnoesojd QL|» Aq peonppe eouepiAe 941 pejouBi 6uiAeq inq 'py ssioxg 941 P 9g pue ^s suoipos jepun seoue^o eqi jo^ pQsnooe/iuepuodsQj eqt 6UJIOIAUOO ynoo |eui peujeei eqi Aq pepjooej sBuipuy eqi peLUJij^e 8Aeq o\ iq6no M0|eq ^inoo sqi pjooQj uo eiqeiieAB leusieuu jo siseq 941 uo ieqi siiiuqns 8ieis/iue||9dde eqi jo^ lesunoo •g •leeddesiqi eouei-j •896jeL|o esoqi p 0114 peiiinboe seq 9iejisi6e|/\| eqi p jepjo eqi epjse BUIUQS pnoo 9ie||9dde JQMOI e^ lesdde ui ^nq pv sspx^ eqi p ge pue i7£ suoipes jepun seouej^o eqi JQJ pesnooe/iuepuodsej 9L<i pepiAuoo ijnoo |eui sqi seiyed eqi Buueeq jeyy 'S •eseo e^ ui uoneoiidiui esie^ pue 90U930UUI Siq p8p69|d PUB LUiq isuieBe p8||9A8| seBjeqo eqi peiuep ©qqoiL|M U! ejnpeoojd IBUILUUO p epoo eqi p £(.£uoipes jepun -~c— -M i- ^.- -3- training and experience gained by him in the department, he has submitted the report to the effect that the seized article was liquor. Thus there is no cogent proof to the effect that respondenVaccused was in possession of liquor. 9. After going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents /accused of the offences under Sections 34 and 36 of the Excise Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge