The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Karan

The State of Rajasthan vs Ram Karan

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 28, 1978

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758833

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758833
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.C. Agrawal, J.
Decided On: Nov 28, 1978
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1977
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 - Section 54(d)--Two pitchers containing 'lahan' recovered from open 'Badha' of accused--'Badha', accessible to all--Held, pitchers were not recovered from 'possession' of accused and acquittal is affirmed.;In the present case the recovery memo (Ex. P. 2) shows that the pitchers containing...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Ram Karan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ukha Kolhe v. State of Mahazashtra
Reported In: 1978WLN(UC)408

Excerpt

.....circumstances, it cannot be said that the two pitches which were, recovered concealed in the 'badha' d the house of the respondent were recovered from t he possession of the respondent.;the order dated 30th may, 1972 passed by the mursiff & judicial magistrate. 1st class bhadra, acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 16/54(d) of the rajasthan excise act is affirmed.;appeal dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the judicial magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of kashiram dw/1. having found that the pitchers containing 'lahan' were recovered from the house of the petitioner, the judicial magistrate held that neither pw/1 nor pw/3 had, deposed with regard to the seal which was put on the sample of the lahan which was taken out of the said pitchers that the prosecution had failed, to adduce evidence about the person who had..........acquitting him on the view that the lahan found in the said pitchers did not contain alcohol the submission of the learned public prosecutor is that the judicial magistrate ought to have drawn a presumption about regularity of official acts under section 114 of the evidence act and should have presumed that the sears on the sample had not been tampered with till the sample reached the chemical examiner.6. in my view, the aforesaid contention urged by the learned public prosecutor cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the supreme court in ukha kolhe v. state of mahazashtra air 1963 sc 1531, wherein the supreme court, while dealing with a case under the bombay pichibition act, has observed:the method of storage of the phial when it was in the custody of the police officers are of its dealings therewith when it was in the custody of the special messenger have been left in obscurity. but the evidence does disclose that the phial was sealed in the presence of dr. rote, and the report of the chemical examiner also disclosed that they had opened a phial which was sealed and that the seal was intact, with the device, medico-legal bombay. evidence regarding the dealing with the phial since it was sealed aid it was submitted for examination of the chemical examiner may appear to be formal; but it has still to be ltd in a criminal case to discharge the burden which lay upon the prosecution.in the said case, the supreme court had remanded the matter to the sessions judge for recording additional evidence in view, of the aforesaid decision, the judicial magistrate, when he found that the evidence with regard to the sealing of the sample & as to how it had been dealt with was lacking, ought to have recorded such evidence. following the aforesaid judgment of the supreme court. i would have remanded the matter for recording additional evidence in this regard but i find that no purpose would be served by the said remand in as much as on the basis of the evidence on.....

Full Judgment

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Cede of Criminal Procedure, 1977 against the judgment dated 30th May, 1977, passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhadra, in Cr. Case No. 1065/74, whereby the respondent Ramkaran was acquitted of the charge under Section 16/54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7th May, 1974 Madanlal, Excise Inspector, Mundaria made a search of the house of the respondent in village Mundaria and during the course of said search two pitchers (earthen pots) full of 'lahan' were found concealed in the badha (outer compound wall) of the house and the sample of the said 'lahan', on analysis, Was found to contain alcohol. The prosecution in support bf its case, examinee Madan lal (PW. 1), the Excise Inspector who conducted the seared and made the recovery, Balaram (PW. 2) the attesting witness to the recovery memo (Ex. P.2) and Jassu Khafl (PW. 3) the guard in the Excise' Department and who had accompanied Madan Lal to the house of the respondent at the time of the search. Balaram (PW. 2) did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. Thus the prosecution case depends upon the evidence of Madan Lal (PW/1) and Jassu Khan (PW/3) and the documents, viz. memo of information (Ex. P.1) Recovery Memo (Ex. P.2), Site Plan (Ex. P.3), Memo of Arrest (Ex. P.4) end the report of the Chemical Examiner and Public Analyst (Ex. P.5).

3. The respondent pleaded that no recovery was made from his house as alleged by the prosecution and in support of the aforesaid defence, he produced one witness viz., Kashiram (DW/1).

4. The Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate in his judgment aforesaid has believed the testimony of Madan Lal (PW/1) and Jassu Khan (PW/3) and has found that two pitchers containing 'lahan' were recovered from the house of the accused. The Judicial Magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of Kashiram DW/1. Having found that the pitchers containing 'lahan' were recovered from the house of the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate held that neither PW/1 nor PW/3 had, deposed with regard to the seal which was put on the sample of the Lahan which was taken out of the said pitchers that the prosecution had failed, to adduce evidence about the person who had carried the said sample for chemical examination to Jaipur and that the prosecution had also failed to prove that the seal had remained intact till then and that in the absence of the aforesaid evidence, it was not established that the lahan which was found in the pitchers recovered from the housed of the accused contained alcohol On that view, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent Ramkaran.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, in support of the appeal has submitted that the Judicial Magistrate, having found that the pitchers containing 'lahan' had been recovered from the possession of the respondent, erred in acquitting him on the view that the lahan found in the said pitchers did not contain alcohol The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the Judicial Magistrate ought to have drawn a presumption about regularity of official acts Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and should have presumed that the sears on the sample had not been tampered with till the sample reached the chemical examiner.

6. In my view, the aforesaid contention urged by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ukha Kolhe v. State of Mahazashtra AIR 1963 SC 1531, wherein the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under the Bombay Pichibition Act, has observed:

The method of storage of the phial when it was in the custody of the police officers are of its dealings therewith when it was in the custody of the special messenger have been left in obscurity. But the evidence does disclose that the phial was sealed in the presence of Dr. Rote, and the report of the Chemical Examiner also disclosed that they had opened a phial which was sealed and that the seal was intact, with the device, Medico-Legal Bombay. Evidence regarding the dealing with the phial since it was sealed aid it was submitted for examination of the Chemical Examiner may appear to be formal; but it has still to be ltd in a criminal case to discharge the burden which lay upon the prosecution.

In the said case, the Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge for recording additional evidence In view, of the aforesaid decision, the judicial Magistrate, when he found that the evidence with regard to the sealing of the sample & as to how it had been dealt with was lacking, ought to have recorded such evidence. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. I would have remanded the matter for recording additional evidence in this regard but I find that no purpose would be served by the said remand in as much as on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be held that the two pitchers containing the 'lahan' were recoverd from the possession of the petitioners.

8. There is no dispute that possession which is punishable under Section 54(d) of the Rajas than Excise Act must be conscious possession. In the present case the recovery memo (Ex. P.2) shows that the pitchers containing 'lahan' were found concealed in the 'Badha' (compound wall) of the respondent. The site plan (Ex. P.3) shows that the 'Badha' is open and any person can have access to it without the knowledge of the respondent. It is quite possible that somebody else may have concealed the pitchers in the 'Badha' without the respondent having any knowledge of the same. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the two pitchers which were recovered concealed in the ' Badha'; of the house of the respondent were recovered from the possession of the respondent and, therefore, the question whether the 'lahan' found in these pit hers contained alcohol or not is of no consequence.

9. The result is that the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 30th May, 1977 passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhadra, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 16/54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act is affirmed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1978 Same Parties The State of Rajasthan vs Ram Karan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.C. Agrawal, J.

Criminal