Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Umesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 4080 of 2013
Decided On : 13-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. police recovered unpermitted liquor from vehicle. (Para 2) |
| 2. trial charged accused; prosecution examined witnesses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts upheld conviction based on evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. petitioner alleged procedural lapses and evidence gaps. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. state defended concurrent findings and evidence. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 6. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent legal errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. hostile witness prior statement corroborates presence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. police testimonies reliable despite minor discrepancies. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. few samples suffice to prove all liquor. (Para 27 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. time discrepancies immaterial due to memory lapse. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 11. non-production of seal not fatal. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 12. case property integrity confirmed by intact seals. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 13. malkhana lapses distinguished; explanation suffices. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 14. no permit proves excise act violation. (Para 55) |
| 15. sentence appropriate; revision petition dismissed. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. ( learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 23.10.2009 and order of sentence dated 24.10.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the petitioners (accused before the learned Trial Court) for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.). It was asserted that Inspector Prem Singh (PW-8), ASI Surinder Pal, HC Ludar Singh (PW-2), HC Ram Lal (PW-10), LHC Harbans Singh and Gauri were present at Aut Bazar, District Mandi, H.P. on 12.08.1999. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP33-2436 came from Mandi. The police signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. The police associated Yoginder Singh and Gulab Singh (PW-1) and searched the vehicle. The police recovered forty boxes,each containing twelve pouches of 750 ml of country liquor bearing mark Una No.1,ten boxes each containing 24 pouches of 375 ml of country liquor bearing mark Una No.1,five boxes, each containing fifty pouches of 200 ml of country liquor bearing mark Una No.1, one box containing twelve bottles of 750 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) bearing the mark Black Knight Whisky, one box containing twelve bottles of 750 ml ofIMFL bearing the mark Bagpiper Whisky, one box containing twelve bottles of 750 ml of IMFL bearing the mark Old Monk Rum, one box containing twelve bottles of 750 ml of IMFL bearing mark Diplomat Whisky,one box containing twenty-four bottles of 375 ML of IMFL bearing mark Diplomat Whisky. The driver revealed his name as Umesh Kumar, and the person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Vinod Kumar (since deceased). The police demanded a permit/license for transporting the bottles, but the accused could not produce any permit/license. Police took out one pouch of 750 ml of country liquor bearing mark Una No. 1,one pouch of 375 ml of country liquor bearing mark Una No.1,one pouch of 200 ml of country liquor bearing mark Una No.1, one bottle of 750 ml of IMFL bearing Mark Bagpiper, one bottle of 350 ml of IMFL bearing the mark Black Knight,one bottle of 750 ml of IMFL bearing the mark Old Monk Rum, one bottle of 750 ml of IMFL bearing the mark Diplomat and one bottle of 750 ml of IMFL bearing the Mark Diplomat as samples for analysis. Each pouch was put in a separate cloth parcel, and each parcel was
Revisional jurisdiction limited to correcting patent errors or perversity, not reappreciating evidence; conviction for unlicensed liquor transport upheld on reliable police testimonies, intact sample....
High Court upheld acquittal in illicit liquor case refusing state appeal interference, as first appellate court's view on contradictions in official testimonies, raiding party suspicion, seal discrep....
Acquittal in excess liquor possession case set aside as perverse; no need for independent witnesses in patrolling chance recovery or independent seal custody; reliable police evidence suffices; convi....
Appeal against acquittal in illicit liquor possession upheld where search non-compliant with CrPC Section 165, independent witnesses hostile, case property integrity doubted, and trial court's reason....
The prosecution's failure to produce key evidence, including case property and corroborating witness testimonies, justified the appellate court's acquittal of the accused.
The conviction under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act was set aside due to prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt based on procedural violations.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene when the trial court's findings demonstrate clear legal error or perverse reasoning.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
