IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 115 of 2001 Reserved on: : 31.12.2007 Date of decision : 04.01.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Bhupinder Singh. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant. : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in case No. 83-III-97 under Section 61(1) (9a) of the Excise Act in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District-Una and was acquitted on 28.11.2000. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The brief facts as gathered from the judgement of the trial Court are that on 22.10.1996 a police party headed by S.H.O. Bidhi Chand was returning to Una. At about 6.15 P.M. when the jeep reached at Samoor Kalan, accused who was having a brief case in his hand gave signal to the jeep. The jeep was stopped but when the accused saw the police officials in the jeep, he turned back and started moving towards the temple side. Accused was apprehended by the police and personal search was conducted. During his personal search, 12 botttles of Una No.1 were recovered from the brief case of the accused. The F.I.R was registered and the matter was investigated. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? The prosecution had examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondent on 28.11.2000. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. He further contended that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. Mr.Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 28th November, 2000. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. No independent witness was associated to witness the personal search of the respondent. PW-3 Surjeet Singh and PW-4 Raj Kumar, ASI have admitted the existence of abadi near the place where the personal search of the respondent was conducted. The police should have associated independent witness at the time of carrying out the personal search of the respondent. The recovery memo has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court due to the contradictions in the statements of PW-3 Surjeet Singh and PW-4 Raj Kumar. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. The trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused on 28th November, 2000. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court dated 28.11.2000. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent is discharged. January 04, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), ™ Judge