IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 370 of 2014

Reserved on: 02.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026.

Deepak Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the Petitioner : Mr Sparsh Bhushan,

Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy

g Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment

dated 15.10.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Shimla (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 14.08.2013 and order of sentence dated 16.08.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused 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 HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW7), Constable Suresh Kumar (not examined) and constable Rajesh Kumar (PW4) had gone for patrolling towards Lower Bazaar, Mall Road and Middle Bazaar on 27.10.2009. They were present on the Mall Road when they saw the accused carrying a plastic bag (Ext.P1) coming from CTO and going towards Scandal Point. He returned after seeing the police and tried to run away. The police apprehended him. The police joined Om Prakash Sharma (PW5) and Kishori Lal (PW1) and enquired about the name of the accused. He identified himself as Deepak Kumar.

3. The police checked the bag and found 12 bottles of Green Label Whisky, each containing 750 ml of IMFL. The police retained four bottles as samples, seized the remaining 8 bottles (Ext. P2 to Ext. P9), put them in the bag and sealed the bag with seal ‘A’. Seal impression (Ext. PX) was obtained on a separate piece of cloth, and the bag was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW7) prepared the rukka (Ext.PW7/B) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW3/A) was registered. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW7) investigated the matter. He prepared the site planu (Ext.PW7/C) and recorded the statements of witnesses as poer their version. He deposited the case property with HC SiCta Ram (PW2), who deposited them in Malkhana and sent them to CTL Kandaghat for analysis. The results of the analysis (Ext.PY and PZ) were issued, mentioning that each sample contained 75.0 per cent proof alcohol in it. The Hstatements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him 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., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined 8 witHnesses to prove its case. Kishori Lal (PW1), Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW4), and Om Prakash Sharma (PW5) are the witnesses to recovery. HC Sita Ram (PW2) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. SI Bali Ram (PW3) signed the FIR. Inspector Shakuntla (PW6) prepared the challan. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW7) investigated the matter. HC Raj Pal (PW8) carried the case property to CTL Kandaghat.

6. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that a false case was made against him. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

7. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corro