2016 (12) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Pondicherry Excise (Amendment) Act, 1989.  3. The prosecution version of the case in brief runs as under: (i) On 22.01.2003, at Pandakkal, the appellant, P.W.1, Sridharan, V.A.O, and other official have raided the upstairs of the premises of Sai Nilayam. 333 cases of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) were found.  A1 was standing there. In the presence of P.W.'s 2 and 3, P.W.1 had seized the property. P.W.'s 5 and 6 are revenue officials, P.W.4 investigated this case. Completing the investigation final report for offences under Sections 31 (a) and 33 of Pondicherry Excise (Amendment Act), 1989 has been filed before the Trial Court. 4. To substantiate charges, prosecution examined P.W's 1 to 6 and mark....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....considered. It has been passed after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that to convict a person, under Sections 31 (a) and 33 of the said Pondicherry Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the ingredients of the offence, beyond all reasonable doubts. However, in this case, the seized item is not proved to be an intoxicating item or Indian Made Foreign Liquor by acceptable scientific evidence. In his cross examination, P.W.6 admitted that the seized items were not sent to Chemical lab for analysis. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent, further contended that merely because A1 was found there, it cannot be immediately presumed that he has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded 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. 19. The other prosecution version is that when the raid was conducted A1 was standing there. Apart from that, there is no further incriminating materials against him. In Manickammal, In re (1965 MWN CR. 156), this Court held that mere physical presence of a person in the building, without acceptable evidence to connect him with the place will not be an incriminating aspect. Similar situation is before us. 20. One of the main ingredient of Sections 31 (a) and 33 of....