IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 2002 Date of decision : June 26, 2009 State of HP …Petitioner Versus Raman Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 4.4.2002 of learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondent Raman Kumar, who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 61 (1) (a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per evidence, is that on 26th July, 2001, around 4.45 AM, PW-4 HC Madan Lal, PW-2 LHC Kuljit Singh and some other police officials had been patrolling between Chambi and Basnoor, when scooter No.PB-10-AM-0628 appeared from Basnoor side. Scooter rider was signalled to stop, but he ran away, leaving the scooter on the spot. He was chased, but could not be apprehended. Police officials searched the dickey of the scooter and found 15 pouches of country liquor, with brand name ‘Sirmour No.1’. Next day respondent went to Police Station, to seek release of his scooter. He told Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the police officials that he had given the scooter to some other person, on the previous day. He also took with him the documents of the scooter. Police arrested him. Samples were taken from three of the recovered pouches and sent to Chemical Examiner, who gave the opinion that the contents of the sample nips were of country liquor. 3. Prosecution examined two witnesses, namely PW-2 Kuljit Singh and PW-4 HC Madan Lal, to prove its case. PW-2 Kuljit Singh admitted that respondent had not been identified on the spot and that he was made an accused, only after he appeared at the Police Station on the next following day, to seek release of the scooter. PW-4 HC Madan Lal also did not say, in the examination-in-chief, that the scooter was being driven by the respondent. It was only on a suggestion put to him, in the cross-examination, that he denied that the scooter was not being driven by the respondent. He also denied that the respondent appeared at the Police Station on the next following day to seek release of the scooter. Statement of this witness is contradictory to the statement of PW-2 Kuljit Singh. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 Kuljit Singh, especially when the prosecution did not choose to declare him a hostile witness. In any case, when there are two versions, the one favourable to the accused, has to be accepted. 4. Consequently, appeal is dismissed being without merit. June 26, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J