The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the conviction to be based on the testimony of independent witnesses and the chain of events being established to the satisfaction of the court, rather than solely relying on the testimony of interested witnesses.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Hunge, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chutke, APP for the respondent/State.

2. The learned Magistrate has convicted the applicant for the offence u/s 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000.00, in default S.I. for 30 days by the judgment dtd. 23/5/2018.

3. The appellate court by the judgment dtd. 19/6/2021 has partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction, however setting aside the sentence for imprisonment. The sentence of fine has been maintained.

4. It is against these two judgments, that the present revision has been filed.

5. Mr. Hunge, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution story that the applicant was found carrying 5 bottles of Royal Stag (foreign liquor) of 180 ml each, worth Rs.1,500.00 and two bottles of Imperial Blue (foreign liquor) of 180 ml each, worth Rs.600.00, on 21/5/2016 has not been proved, inasmuch as the punch witnesses before whom the seizure has been made have turned hostile. He therefore submits that in absence of an independent witness, to prove the seizure, the conviction cannot be based upon the mere statements and evidence of police constables who are all interested in ensuring that the prosecution succeeded and therefore have narrated the incident in a parrot like manner. He therefore submits that the learned Courts below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW-3 to 8, as they were all interested witnesses. He further submits that even during the course of evidence, PWs-3 to 8 have not identified the accused, as no question to that effect was put to them. He therefore submits that the conviction based upon the testimony of PWs-3 to 8 who are interested witnesses, cannot be sustained.

6. Learned APP opposes the application and supports the impugned judgment. He does not dispute that the witnesses to the spot panchnama and the seizure viz. PW-1 and 2 have turned hostile and so also the fact that no question was put to PW-3 to 8 in the nature of identifying the accused, he however submits that the evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5 who were present on the spot is worthy of credence and the conviction based upon their evidence is clearly sustainable in law.

7. It is a trite position of law, that wherever possible, the conviction ought to be based upon the testimony of independent witnesses and upon the chain of events being established to the satisfaction of the court based upon the evidence on record, and unless it is shown from the record that the testimony of the other witnesses was clear and reliable, it would not be safe to base a conviction upon the testimony of interested witnesses. In the instant case, there is no doubt that PW-1 and PW-2 who are the panch witnesses to the spot and seizure have turned hostile. It is also a matter of record that the conviction is based upon the testimonies of PWs-3, 4 and 5 & 8 who are the police constables and who are claimed to have carried out the raid on the basis of secret information.

8. PW-3 is the person who has lodged the FIR on the basis of the raid which is claimed to have been conducted by him along with PWs-4 and 5. It is however material to note that neither PW-3, nor PW-4 have identified the appellant, as the accused person who is claimed to be carrying the bottles of foreign liquor on the fateful day from whom it is claimed to have been seized. Though PW-5 in his chief states about the incident, however, in his cross examination he categorically states that the incident narrated by him in his examination in chief had never occurred. It is therefore apparent that the entire conviction has been based upon the testimony of PWs-3 and 4, who have failed to identify the accused. In absence of the PWs-1 and 2, supporting the prosecution story regarding the seizure of the material and the evidence of PW-5 which indicates that no such incident had taken place, the conviction of the appellant merely on the test