2016 (12) TMI 124 - HC - Indian Laws

Indian Made Foreign liquor - contraband item - seizure - the prosecution had failed to establish the ownership of the building by A2 and there was no scientific evidence to establish that the seized item are Indian Made Foreign liquor, an intoxicating item. Thus, the learned Magistrate acquitted them - whether the prosecution has established offences under Sections 31 (a) and 33 of the Pondicherry Excise (Amendment Act), 1989 as against A1 beyond all reasonable doubts - Whether the finding of the trial Court, suffers from any legal perversity? Held that - close reading of Sections 31 (a) and 33 of Pondicherry Excise (Amendment Act), 1989 shows that the offences prescribed therein requires certain basic elements viz., the person should be in possession, transportation etc., of an intoxicating item, without any authority, licence, order of the Pondicherry Government. Thus, only on establishing all these elements, the offences stated above would be made out. In this case, P.W.1 has been examined to speak about seizure of the contraband. P.W. s 2 and 3 are seizure Mahazar witnesses. They have not supported the prosecution. P.W.6, admitted in the cross examination that no record has been seized to establish that the premises in question belongs to the accused. On the contrary, the defense side contended that it belongs to one Achutan and to probabilise their defence, the accused also examined then Municipal Commissioner as D.W.1. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the premises belong to the accused - One of the main ingredient of Sections 31 (a) and 33 of Pondicherry Excise (Amendment Act), 1989 is that the prosecution should establish that the contraband seized is an intoxicating item. P.W.6 admits that the seized liquor bottles were not sent to clinical lab. However, an attempt has been made by the prosecution stating that the analysis report is available but not marked, which is not satisfactory - In the light of the above, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubts - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against acquittal under Sections 31 (a) and 33 of Pondicherry Excise (Amendment) Act, 1989

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prosecution's Version and Evidence Presented:
The prosecution's case involved a raid where 333 cases of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) were found, leading to charges against A1 and A2 under Sections 31 (a) and 33 of the Act. Witnesses P.W's 1 to 6 were examined, and exhibits P1 and P2 were marked to substantiate the charges.

2. Defense and Trial Court's Conclusion:
The defense presented D.W.1 to establish the building's ownership and contested the prosecution's claims. The trial Court acquitted A1 and A2, citing a lack of ownership proof and absence of scientific evidence confirming the seized items as intoxicating liquor.

3. State's Appeal and Arguments:
The State appealed against the acquittal, arguing that A1's presence during the raid implied his involvement, emphasizing the necessity to establish ownership or possession of the building. The State contended that the accused should have been convicted based on the evidence.

4. Respondent's Defense and Legal Stand:
The respondent's counsel defended the acquittal, highlighting the prosecution's failure to prove the seized items' intoxicating nature through scientific evidence. They argued that mere presence at the scene does not establish guilt, referencing legal precedents to support their stance.

5. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined the legal requirements of Sections 31 (a) and 33 of the Act, emphasizing the need to establish possession of intoxicating items without authorization. It noted discrepancies in ownership proof and lack of concrete evidence linking A1 to the offense. Citing relevant case law, the Court upheld the trial Court's decision, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Legal Precedents and Analysis:
The judgment referred to legal precedents emphasizing the necessity for the prosecution to establish the nature of seized items as intoxicating liquor through scientific evidence. It highlighted the importance of meeting all elements of the offense to secure a conviction under the relevant provisions.

7. Final Verdict and Dismissal of Appeal:
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial Court's acquittal decision due to the prosecution's failure to conclusively prove the charges against A1 beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment concluded that the State's case lacked sufficient evidence to establish guilt under the specified sections of the Act.