The court upheld that convictions can rely on official witness testimony even without independent corroboration if the evidence is credible, and absence of chemical analysis report does not invalidate a conviction.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision filed under Sections 401 and 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bhawanipatna in Criminal Appeal No.49/45 of 2006-2007, whereby the judgment of conviction passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna in 2(a) C.C. Case No.442 of 2002 has been confirmed and the order of sentence has been modified.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.09.2003, the S.I. of Excise of Bhawanipatna Sadar along with other police personnel while performing patrol duty at village Phatkamal, received information of illegal possession of I.D. Liquor by the petitioner in his house. Therefore, the S.I. of Excise searched the house of the petitioner in presence of the petitioner and witnesses. On search, he recovered and seized one plastic jar containing 10 liters of I.D. Liquor from the possession of the petitioner from his house. When he tested the seized liquor by means of blue litmus paper and hydrometer, it was found that the seized liquor was I.D. Liquor. He seized the liquor and prepared the seizure list in presence of the witnesses and the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, he sealed the seized jar by means of paper seal, arrested the petitioner and released him on bail. After completion of investigation, P.R. under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act was submitted against the petitioner resulting in the trial of the case.

3. Heard Mr. S. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Roul, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. To bring home charges, the prosecution had examined as many as four witnesses and four documents were exhibited. Out of the four witnesses, P.W.1 was the Sub-Inspector of Excise. P.W.2 was the A.S.I. of Excise. P.W.3 was an independent witness and P.W.4 was the Excise Constable in this case. Admittedly, there was no chemical examination report placed on record.

5. The learned trial Court analyzed the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 to be reliable and trustworthy and on the basis of their testimony believed the fact of seizure. The learned trial Court had also accepted the evidence of P.W.1 as opinion of the expert and held the seized liquor to be I.D. Liquor. By relying upon the testimony of the official witnesses, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act and substantively sentenced the petitioner to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months more.

6. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna in 2(a) C.C. Case No.442 of 2002 was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.49/45 of 2006-2007 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhawanipatna by the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court although confirmed the conviction as had been recorded against the petitioner by the trial court but modified the sentence imposed against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to undergo R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days, in default to make the payment. The petitioner has assailed the aforementioned judgment/order of conviction and sentence in the present Revision Petition having failed in his appeal.

7. I have perused the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and analyzed the judgments of the Courts below. Two vital contentions has been raised by the petitioner namely in absence of support of the independent witness, the conviction cannot be s