TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... When the car was brought to a halt, the driver looked nervous. Feeling suspicious, the car was thoroughly examined. From below the seats, they could unearth some sort of a liquid in the compartments made therein. On examination, they were convinced that it was spirit. Articles were seized in the presence of witnesses and the accused was arrested. PW1 took 200ml as sample in a bottle having a capacity of 375ml and sealed and labelled the same containing the signatures of the accused, witnesses and PW1. Further examination of the car and the body search of the accused did not yield anything. The mahazar prepared by PW1 is Ext.P1. The arrest memo prepared is Ext.P2. PW1 entrusted the custody of accused, documents and the contraband article seized to the Bathery Excise Range Office. The driving licence which was found in the car was also taken into custody. PW2, who was manning the Bathery Excise Range Office, took custody of the accused, articles delivered and the documents produced and as per Ext.P5, registered Crime No.11/2000. After preparing the occurrence mahazar, arrest memo, along with the arrest memo etc. the accused was produced before the court immediately. The vehicle seiz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he replied that he was not concerned and he tried to walk away, the Excise Officer sought for his name and address. He was thereafter falsely implicated as if the car belonged to him. 7. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He examined himself as DW2 and examined DW1 in his defence. 8. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the court below found that the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 left one in no doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle and that 450 litres of spirit was seized from the vehicle which he had driven on the day of incident. The court below found that his story of travelling in a lorry etc. are false and without any basis and on finding him guilty, conviction and sentence followed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the conviction contended that the number of the vehicle shown in the forwarding note and the number of the vehicle shown in the Chemical Analysis Report vary and that creates a serious doubt regarding the sample analyzed in the laboratory. It becomes extremely doubtful whether the sample analyzed in the laboratory is the sample taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance that the tube by which the sample was collected is not produced, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, is ridiculous. There is no obligation or there is no duty cast on the person who takes the samples to produce that utensil by which the sample is taken. In short, the learned Public Prosecutor contended the court below has analyzed the evidence meticulously and has found the evidence to be convincing enough to hold the accused guilty. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the court below. 11. Even though the accused came forward with a story of travelling in a lorry etc. and accidentally going to the place of incident, that remains unsubstantiated. The evidence of detection is spoken to by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5, among whom PWs 1 and 2 are the Excise Officers. PW1 is the person who had the vehicle stopped and who had examined the vehicle. He had discovered the hidden compartments in the car containing the contraband article. He then speaks about having made it known to the accused that he had committed a crime and says that he prepared the arrest memo and had the accused arrested. He also speaks about the sample taken and he speaks about having prepared Ext.P1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....happening, can be only taken with a pinch of salt. As rightly noticed by the court below, the evidence of DW1 can be of now help to him. 16. Coming now to the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the first is regarding the difference in the number of the car in the forwarding note and in the Chemical Analysis Report. True, there is a slight difference. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the crime number is shown in the Chemical Analysis Report and so also it is stated that the sample seal forwarded tallied with the seal found on the sample bottle sent for analysis. The number shown in the Chemical Analysis Report can only be a clerical error. 17. PW2, the person before whom the articles, documents and the accused were produced, has deposed before court that he prepared the occurrence report, the property list and had produced the accused and documents before the court though the contraband article was produced only on the next day. Even assuming that the articles were produced only on the next day, there is nothing to show that any prejudice has been caused or any tampering could have been done in the meanwhile. 18. As regards the con....