Proper identification of case property and sufficiency of evidence are essential for upholding a conviction under the Punjab Excise Act.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of the present revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 59-S/10 of 2008, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Theog, dated 23.09.2008 in case No. 25-3 of 2006, has been partly modified.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 05.11.2005, police officials HC Bhom Prakash, constable Jagat, constable Rakesh and constable Bittu, proceeded to Rahighat-Dhamandri in connection with patrolling as well as Naka duty. At about 12.30 A.M., they reached 3 K.M. ahead of Rahighat a vehicle Tata Spacio bearing registration No. 01A-3604 was intercepted. In the said vehicle, two persons were travelling. Driver disclosed his name Lekh Raj and other person disclosed his name Jitender. From the said vehicle 55 boxes of country liquor Marka Saroor were recovered being transported without any valid permit. Rukka Ext. PW4/A was sent to Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW4/B was registered against accused persons. 55 boxes of country liquor were taken into possession and one bottle from five foxes each was withdrawn as sample and thereafter sample and bulk were sealed with seal impression ‘O’. The vehicle alongwith its documents were also taken into possession in presence of the witnesses. Sample of the seal was taken on white cloth Ext. PW4/D. Sample was sent to the CTL Kandaghat for chemical analysis and report of Chemical Examiner was obtained, which is Ext. PZ. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P. The accused were charged for offence under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The learned trial Court on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons and accordingly, it sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P. and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each. In the event of failure to pay the fine, the convicts were directed to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month each.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, the accused challenged the same by way of appeal. The learned Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed the accused persons to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ months instead of six months rigorous imprisonment and besides this, the rest of the sentence passed by the learned trial Court was not disturbed. The sentence was modified by the learned Appellate Court after holding that the learned trial Court had wrongly convicted the accused for being in conscious and joint possession of 660 bottles of country liquor instead of five bottles of country liquor because the prosecution had only been able to prove that both the accused were in conscious and joint possession of 5 bottles of country liquor, which were being transported without any valid permit.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments, the accused have filed the present revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below were perverse and were not sustainable in law. According to him, the prosecution had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were transporting country liquor as alleged or had committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P. According to the learned counsel, the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below were not