Cr.MP(M) No. 768 of 2010 06.08.2010 Present: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General for the State/Petitioner. Cr.MP(M) No. 768 of 2010 The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kandaghat, District Solan acquitting the respondent for offence under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The case of the prosecution is that the police had organized a Naka on National Highway No. 22 at Vaknaghat. When they were checking vehicles, the respondent was found carrying a gunny bag in his right hand. On suspicion the police stopped him and inquired from him as to what he was carrying. On search having been made, it is alleged that 8 bottles of 750 ml. each of country liquor were recovered from him for which he had no explanation nor had he any valid licence to possess liquor beyond the permissible limits. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. Needless to say that all of them are police personnel. On the evidence of witnesses, the learned trial Court notices that (a) No attempt has been made to associate any independent witness although the respondent was intercepted and purportedly caught on the National Highway No. 22 i.e. Kalka/ Shimla road, which is congested with traffic; (b) The witnesses also could not state as to how and who granted bail to the respondent, that is, whether bail was granted to him on the spot or at the police station; (c) The last point which is very material is that the specimen seal of the sample taken from the respondent was handed over to one of the witnesses. But neither the seal nor the witness has not been produced in Court. The reason for not doing so, has not been stated by any of the witnesses. Neither any explanation has come forth from the prosecution nor the seal was kept by them. In these circumstances, the order of acquittal was passed. I do not find any merit in this appeal as even if other factors, as considered by the learned trial Court for acquittal, are ignored, the most vital and important factor is that impression with respect to the seals which was used for sealing the illicit/smuggled liquor has also not been produced. These factors have not been proved and therefore, obviously no conviction could follow. There is thus no merit in this appeal. This application is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal declined. Cr. Appeal____of 2010 Dismissed. August 06, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge