Mohd. Yamin, J. - (1.) Respondent-accused Sona Singh was prosecuted before Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh for offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Charge was framed by the learned Magistrate against him on 1.8.78. He denied his indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 4 witnesses in support of his defence. Accused respondent was ^examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties, acquitted the respondent. It is assailed by the Appellant State.
(2.) In brief, case of the prosecution is that Ashok Kumar (PW/4) Excise Inspector was on patrolling duty on 8.8.77. He received information from a mukhbir that the respondent accused was keeping illicit liquor. He searched the bada of the respondent-accused and recovered illicit liquor, sample of which was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Report of Chemical Examiner is available on record which shows that the samples which were four in number contained (a) 44.64 (b) 44.64 (c) 44.64 (d) 44.64 under-proof Ethyl Alcohol. The respondent was prosecuted, tried and acquitted as stated above.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was a delay in examination of the sample by the Chemical Examiner. He submitted that the acquittal may be converted into conviction. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Magistrate acquitted the respondent because of extraordinary delay in examination of sample.;