P.N.Harkauli - (1.) SURAJ Singh applicant was convicted under Section 60 (a) (f) of the Excise Act and was sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo 8 months further R. J. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, Surjan Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Thereupon the present application for revision was filed.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 28-5-1971, at about 5 P. M., Excise Inspector, Sri R. C. Srivastava searched the house of the applicant and on his pointing out 5 pounds of rectified spirit in bottles, two bottles and three half bottles of illicit whisky, three bottles of illicit rum, one half bottle of illicit rum, 1150 Capsules, 13,000 labels, 15 lis. essence and colour meant for English Wines, the Capsule machine, etc. were recovered from him. The applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He further stated that once before he had been challaned under the Excise Act but he had been acquitted. The prosecution examined two witnesses namely the Excise Inspector, Sri R. C. Srivastave and one Kailash Nath to prove the aforesaid recoveries. Their evidence, as already stated, was believed by both the courts below.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended chiefly that there was no evidence worth the name to prove that the aforesaid articles had been recovered from the possession of the applicant. This argument appears to have force. Sri R. C. Srivastava (P. W. 1] no doubt stated in his examination-in-chief that he had searched that portion of the house which was in possession of the applicant Similarly Kailash Nath (P. W. 2) the other witness had stated in examination-in-chief that the house of the applicant was searched. But in cross-examination Sri R. C. Srivastava stated that upon enquiry he had come to know that the house belonged to the applicant and that he had come to know on the day of the occurrence that the back portion of the house (from which the recoveries are alleged to have been made) was in the possession of Surjan Singh.;