IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.635 of 2002. Decided on: July 6, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Pritam Chand. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. and Mr.P.M.Negi, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr.P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant / State and Mr.S.D. Vasudava, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present criminal appeal has arisen consequent upon granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to impugned judgment dated 1.4.2002, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (I), Dharamshala, HP in Criminal case No. 10-III/02, for the alleged involvement of Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… the accused-respondent, under section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, acquitting the alleged accused/ respondent 3. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to refer the prosecution case in brief. On 7.9.2001 around 10.15 PM at Kholi Khad bridge in Kangra District when S.I. Prittam Singh, ASI Negi Ram, HC Shyam Parsad No.72, LHC Kuljeet Singh No. 800 were on patrolling and nakabandi duty, they noticed Prittam Singh, alleged accused, coming from Puhara side along with two plastic bags on is head and was intercepted by the aforesaid police party. The alleged accused threw away the plastic bags and started running back from the spot. However, he was apprehended by the said police officials by chasing him at some distance and on checking in presence of official witnesses, as no independent witness was available, then six card boxes were recovered from the bags each containing 12 pouches with 750 ML each i.e. 54000 MLs country liquor of Patiala Orange brand. Samples were kept in sealed bottles. Seizure memo was prepared and FIR was lodged. On investigation, charges in reference to section 61(1) (a) of Punjab Excise Act was made out. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses. PW1 …3… C. Surinder Kumar No. 191, PW 2 MHC Bishesh Kumar No.13, PW3 ASI Negi Ram, PW4 SI Prittam Singh, whereas the alleged accused person has denied the prosecution case in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. On the basis of material on record, following two points were framed for determination. The first point was answered in negative and in reference to second point, accused / respondent was acquitted for the alleged offence. i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 7.9.01 around 10.15 P.M. at Kholi Khud bridge in Kangra Distt the accused was found to be in exclusive and conscious possession of 6 boxes each containing 12 pouches i.e. 54000 MLs of country liquor of Patiala Orange brand and thereby committed an offence under section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of HP ?. ii) Final order. 5. On the basis of basis of analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, the trial court has found that no independent witness was available at the spot as the spot was isolated one. It has also been …4… noted that one Dhaba was near the place where the nakabandi was made, but no respectable person was associated by the prosecution before making nakabandi at the spot. Out of recovered pouches, samples of three were taken separately for chemical examination which was also not found to be proper. No independent witness was brought by the prosecution and that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 have given contrary expression so much so when PW-3 ASI Negi Ram has deposed tha 72 pouches each containing 750 ML of country liquor, Patiala Orange brand were recovered from six card boxes which were lying in two plastic bags with the alleged accused, where as PW- 4 SI Prittam Singh, has stated that pouches of country liquor were recovered from the plastic bags which were found in the exclusive possession of the alleged accused and the said pouches were not found from the card boxes. An important infirmity could be noticed from the prosecution case that PW-4 SI Prittam Singh, who has investigated the case, has deposed that the plastic bags were not sealed by them at the spot and the pouches were not put by them into card boxes. Doubt is created when PW-4 has stated that nothing could be said that these pouches were put into card boxes which were …5… shown to him at the time of his examination in the court. In view of the significant contradictions, infirmities and recovery of 72 pouches of country liquor of Patiala Orange brand from the exclusive possession of the accused, doubt has been created. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the alleged accused. In my considered views, learned trial court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the alleged accused by saying that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case successfully holding respondent accused guilty in reference to the offences alleged against him. 6. In view of the above discussion / analysis, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bond furnished by the accused / respondent is hereby discharged. July 6 2009. ( R.B.Misra ) (sl) Judge