VIMAL PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PW2 S.I. Janardan Bhatt lodged an FIR on 03.06.2011 against accused Vimal Pathak, which FIR was registered as case crime no.23/2011 under Section 60/72 of the U.P. Excise Act (as applicable in State of Uttarakhand). The incident allegedly took place on 03.06.2011 at 6:30 PM. The distance between the place of incident and the police station was 600 metres and, hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging FIR, which was based upon the recovery memo of the selfsame date whereby 24 bottles of English wine were being imported by accused Vimal Pathak, Conductor of the bus, unauthorisedly, i.e. without licence.
(2.) It was written in the recovery memo that on 03.06.2011, at 4:00 PM, when the police personnel were busy maintaining law and order, they came to know through an informer that illegal liquor was being imported by the bus conductor in roadways bus, which was due to arrive soon. The police personnel waited for the bus at Strong Farm Intersection. No public witness was willing to be a witness of the incident. The police personnel saw a bus coming from Khatima. The police asked the driver to stop the bus. The bus driver stopped the same. S.I. Janardan Bhatt asked the conductor to open the door of the bus. The bus conductor opened the same. He was asked to open the tool box and battery box. The bus conductor opened the battery box in which a bag was found. The bus conductor took out the bag. The same was opened. 24 bottles of English wine was found in the bag, which contained Hi-Speed Whisky. Each bottle contained 750 ML of wine. Bus conductor was asked to produce the licence for carrying the same, but he could not. He said that he was carrying the wine from Chandigarh for his friend at Tanakpur. The passengers were requested to be the witness of recovery of the said wine, but nobody was ready (to become a witness). Recovery memo of the recovered bottles of English wine was prepared. 22 bottles were sealed and two bottles were kept separately for chemical analysis. Accused was arrested and information of his arrest was given to his family members.
(3.) On the basis of such recovery memo, FIR was lodged. Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act. When the trial began, statement of the accused was taken. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and claimed trial.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.