Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Recovery of huge quantity of Excisable Item. - Mere heavy recovery should not be the ground to come to the conclusion that whatever has been stated by the police official is a gospel truth. Each case has to be weighed on its own merit and circumstance. Suspicious cir- cumstances start when the Investigating. Agency ignores to procure an independent witness though he could have procured the same. Heavy quantify of liquor does not lend corrobora- tion to the evidence of the official witnesses as the case property produced before the trial court does not bear any identity marks. Recovery of 280 litres of rectified spirit. Contention that false case was made by Police repelled. It is not convincing that Police would have planted a large quantity. Recovery of 35 bottles of illicit liquor. No independent witness joined. Seizure Memo did not show recovery of any money. Held, a person carrying 35 bottles of illicit liquor is expected to carry some money with him also. In view of this infirmity accused could not be convicted on evidence of official witness. 45 bottles of liquor found from accused. Accused 21/22 years of age. Accused sentenced to imprisonment but released on Probation as the accused left the business of illicit liquor. 75 kg. Lahan recovered from accused. Sentence of R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by trial Court and affirmed by Sessions Judge. Accused a poor labourer and first of- fender. Report of probation officer not called for by trial Court. Benefit of probation denied to accused without considering his age, character and antecedents. Object of also reformative. Accused granted benefit of probation under Section 360 C.P.C. by the High Court. Accused sentenced to R.I. for 8 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- by Sessions Judge. Prayer for release on probation. Declined by trial Court as well as Sessions Judge on the ground of 40 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. Accused a young man aged 26 years and a first of- fender. Revision before High court. Accused held entitled to benefit of probation and ordered to be released on probation for two years and his sentence of fine set aside. However, he was ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the Occurrence took place in 1976. Sentence reduced to 3 months R.I. Conviction under. Benefit of Probation denied to the accused by trial Court as well as by Sessions judge on the ground that 40 bottles of illicit liquor have been recovered. Accused a young man of about 26 years and first offender. Accused held entitled to the benefit of proba- tion. Sentence of fine also set aside. Accused however ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the State. Recovery of 40 bottles of liquor. Accused convicted. Accused released on probation. From quantity of liquor it cannot be said that accused was a bootlegger. Recovery of 45 bottles illicit of liquor. Accused convicted and sentenced to 6 months R.I and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Occurrence took place in 1983. Accused on bail since 1983. Fit case to release the accused on probation.