STATE OF HP vs RAJU - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3230

Headnote

(A) Punjab Excise Act - Section 61(1)(a) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 2(1)(p), 100, and 165 - Search of vehicle - Mandatory requirement to record reasons in writing under Section 165 Cr.PC - The term “place” as defined under Section 2(1)(p) of the Cr.PC includes a vehicle; therefore, a search of a vehicle requires compliance with Section 165 of the Cr.PC - In every search conducted under a special enactment without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory; failure to do so vitiates the search. (Paras 18-22)

(B) Evidence - Independent witness - Stock witness - Testimony of a witness who has appeared in multiple cases on behalf of the police and maintains a cordial relationship with police officials is doubtful - Such witnesses are considered convenient witnesses, making the prosecution’s case unreliable in the absence of other corroborative independent evidence. (Paras 26-28)

(C) Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of interference - A judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless it is patently perverse, based on a misreading of material evidence, or if no other reasonable view is possible - If two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court must refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. (Paras 13-15)

Facts of the case:
The police intercepted a vehicle based on secret information and recovered 18 bottles of liquor. The accused was convicted by the trial court for transporting liquor without a permit. This conviction was subsequently set aside by the first appellate court, which noted contradictions in official testimonies and the use of a stock witness. The State appealed against this acquittal before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the search was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 165 of the Cr.PC. Furthermore, the independent witness was found to be a stock witness for the police, and his testimony regarding the formation of the raiding party contradicted the official version provided by the police.

Issues: Whether the search of a vehicle falls under the mandate of Section 165 of the Cr.PC and whether the first appellate court's judgment of acquittal was perverse enough to warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that “place” as defined in the Cr.PC includes vehicles, making the recording of grounds of belief in writing under Section 165 mandatory. The failure to comply with this requirement invalidates the search. Additionally, the use of a stock witness and material contradictions in the prosecution's narrative justify the acquittal. Since the appellate court took a reasonable view based on the evidence, the High Court cannot overturn it simply because another view is possible.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

1. State appeal against acquittal for offence under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act — Recovery of IMFL without permit. (Para (!) , 2 , 3 , 6 )

2. State argued appellate court erred in disbelieving evidence; respondent argued acquittal justified due to non-compliance and stock witness. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )

3. Appeal dismissed — Acquittal confirmed — Respondent directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )

4. What are the principles governing interference in an appeal against acquittal?

The appellate court can interfere only if the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or no reasonable view other than guilt is possible. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )

5. Does Section 165 CrPC apply to search of a vehicle?

Yes, because the definition of 'place' under Section 2(1)(p) CrPC includes a vehicle, so search of a vehicle must comply with Section 165 CrPC. (Para 20 )

6. What are the mandatory requirements of Section 165 CrPC?

The officer must record in writing the grounds of belief and specify the thing to be searched, and copies must be sent to the nearest Magistrate. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 )