TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 marked Exs.P1 and P2. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating aspects of the prosecution evidence, the accused have denied their complicity in the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 committed the offence. 14. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent cited the following decisions: 1) Manickammal, In re (1965 MWN CR. 156) 2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 Pondicherry Excise (Amendment Act), 1989 is that the prosecution should establish that the contraband seized is an intoxicating item. 21. In Simson and ors, Vs. State(1996 (2) CCR 313), it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
