HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 348 of 2005 Decided on: 22.12.2011 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Yakub Khan, son of Shri Hakumu Deen, Resident of Manglore Bandal, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………Respondent. Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ____________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Inder Dutt, Advocate. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., dated 9.3.2005, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.4.2000, when the police patrolling party led by the then ASI Subhash Chand, Police Station, Renukaji (PW-7), was present in the area near Runka Tunnel, a truck bearing __________________________________________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - No.HR-26-5466 came from Haripur Dhar side and on checking of the said truck, it was found loaded with 49 gunny bags, which were checked by the police and on checking, it was found that these were containing ‘Bhang leaves’. Accordingly, the case was registered against the driver of the truck, namely, Kanwar Pal, the Conductor of the truck namely Dinesh Kumar and the occupants, namely, Sehzad and Tikhu Ram, who were found sitting in the truck at that time. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. 3. The said Conductor and the Driver, namely, Dinesh Kumar and Kanwar Pal, respectively, alongwith other occupants Sehzad and Tikhu Ram were tried by the learned trial Court. Both the Driver and the Conductor were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 30.1.2002/25.2.2002, as observed in the impugned judgment. It is also clear from a perusal of the judgment under challenge that two other occupants, who were also sitting in the said truck alongwith the respondent, were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide its earlier judgment. It was observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment that since both the other occupants were acquitted and the respondent herein was also similarly placed, who was earlier not traceable and was tried separately, therefore, he also deserves to be acquitted on the same reasoning. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court appears to be just and once the respondent was also similarly placed as the other two occupants, namely, Sehzad and Tikhu Ram, who were - 3 - acquitted in the year 2002 and no appeal was filed against their acquittal, the present respondent also deserves to be acquitted accordingly and there is no need to refer to the evidence in this regard. 4. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which his dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. December 22, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.