/. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0.261/2004 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Smt. Ramwati, wife of Shri Heeralal, aged about 35 years, resident of Utter Regaon, Police Station- Tamnar, Tah- Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: The District Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.). CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CRiMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 Appearance: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate forthe applicant. Mr. U.K.S/Chandel, Panel Lawyerforthe State. SUNIL KUMAR SINHAJ. ORDER (31.10.2011) (1) This revision is directed again^ the judgment dated 29.04.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 127/2003 by the 4th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raigarh. (2) By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 565/2002 bythe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharghora, whereby, the applicant was convteted under Section 34(1 )(a) of Excise Act and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, has been dismissed bythe Appellate Court. (3) The facts briefly stated are as under:- On 14.09.2002 a search was made in the house of the applicant and liquor in quantity of 4 Bulk Liters was seized from f^^l '^ 1 w ~r%:y^-^ ''"-<^tL.^c^r b^ CRIMINAL REVISION N0.261/2004 his possession. Panchnama was prepared and charge sheet was filed. Search was made by Excise Sub-lnspector- S.R. Lokhande (P.W.2). During the trial S.R. Lokhande (P.W.2) and Keshav Prasad Devta (P.W.3), Excise cpnstable, supported the case of the prosecution. The third witness i.e. Kartik Ram (P.W.1), who was the witness of search and seizure, turned hostile. The learned Magistrate relied on the testimonies of S.R. Lokhande (P.W.2) and Keshav Prasad Devta (P.W.3) and convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforementioned. The applicant filed appeal against the said judgment passed by the Magistrate but the appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2004. 3. Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that the conviction is based on the testimonies of Excise Officers: the independent witness i.e. Kartik Ram (P.W.1) has not supported the case ofthe prosecution; therefore, the conviction can not be maintained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Courts below. 5. Principally, so far as legal position in this regard is concerned, it has been settled that ifthe evidence ofthe jnvestigating officer is found to be trustworthy and dependable and nothing material has been brought to discredit his evidence in the cross examination or his evidence is otherwise not unreliable, the Criminal Court would be justified in convicting the accused on the sole testimony of the investigating officer. 1 am fortified in my viev®by a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Loochan Naruil Jat and another-Vs- State ofGwarat (2004} 7 SCCS66. Normally in cases where the evidence led by theprosecution as to a fact depends solely on the police witnesses, the Courts seek corroboration as a matter of caution and not as a matter of a rute. Thus, it is only a rule of prudence, which makes the Court to seek corroboration from an independent source, in such cases while assessing the evidence of the police. But in cases where the Court is satisfled that the evidence of the police can be independently relied upw then in such cases, there B B ffj i?,. ".^ i' ^—- '^j J 1. ,. / / Rahul CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 261/2004 is no prohibition in law that the same cannot be accepted without an independent corroboration. {Please see Praveen Kumar -Vs- State ofKamatalca. (2003} 12 SCC 199). 6. In view of the above legal position and after going through the evidence ofS.R. Lokhande (P.W.2) and Keshav Prasad Devta (P.W.3), 1 do not find any infirmity in their evidence so as to discard their testimonies. The learned Magistrate as also the learned Session Judge have rightly relied on the testimonies of above 2 witnesses for resting the conviction of the applicant. 7. The revision has not merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge !