IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.338 of 2001 Date of decision: 8.7.2008 ______________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Surinder Singh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellants: Ms. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.N.D.Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J (oral). This appeal has been filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the C.J.M.Solan, dated 27.1.2001 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the “said act”. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 19.5.1998 at about 4.00 PM, a Haryana Roadways Bus arrived bear Midway Restaurant on the National Highway at Dharampur. This bus was stopped by the officials of the Excise & Taxation Department. On search of the bus, a bag was recovered lying under the seat on which the respondent was sitting. On opening of the said bag, 18 bottles of Gilbeys Green Label I.M.F.L. Whisky were recovered and, as the respondent was sitting on the seat under which the bag was recovered, the respondent was apprehended. A report was sent to the police on the basis of which a case was registered, Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes challan was prepared against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court as detailed above, leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is clear from a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court that the respondent was found sitting in the middle of the seat under which a bag containing the bottles of whisky was recovered. It was clearly observed by the learned trial Court that there could be reason to believe that the same might have been placed by the person who was sitting behind the seat occupied by the respondent. According to the evidence there were 30 to 40 passengers traveling in the bus, but none except the Conductor who might be interest to save his skin, the possibility that the bag might have been kept by the Conductor under the seat cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Court referred to the evidence and had rightly concluded that the liability cannot be fastened upon the respondent simply because the bag containing the bottles of whisky was found to have been kept under the seat on which he was sitting. This does not establish that the respondent was in conscious and exclusive possession of the incriminating articles and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him, cannot be said to be perverse calling from an interference from this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. 8th July, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)