JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: (Oral) - This is an appeal directed by U.T., Chandigarh against the judgment dated 07.01.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, vide which accused/appel­lant was acquitted under Section 61 (1) of the Punjab Excise Act. 2. The case of prosecution as enumerated in the record is that on 12.02.1998, B.D. Bector, DSP. (Security), Chandigarh along with Inspector Ashwani Kumar, SI Magi Ram, Inspector Par­mod Kumar, SHO Police Station North, Sub Inspector Puran Chand, Police Station North and AAT Staff, in connection with investigation of case No. 10 dated 03.02.1998 under Section 13(1)(E) of Prevention of Corruption Act regis­tered at Police Station North, Chandigarh, visited the portion of House No. 311, Sector-9/D, Chandigarh which was in possession of M.S. Walia. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhathinda, (under suspension) on the basis of search warrant issued by Shri M.R. Batra, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Sh. J.P.S. Sidhu, Joint Director, Sports, Sector-9, Chandigarh, Sh. A.B. Bansal, Regional Employment Officer, Sector-17, Chandigarh, Sh. Narata Ram s/o Bi­hari Lal, President of Rehri Market, Sector-9, Chandigarh, Sub Inspector Karnail Singh, Con­stable Bal Ram, Photographer, Carpenter Shiv Parshad s/o Gurdev Singh of U.T. Police and Balbir Singh s/o Tarlok Singh r/o Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh (key maker) were also ac­companied. The lock of the said house was scaled on 03.02.1998. In the presence of all the above said witnesses as well as HC Nirmal Singh and Constable Bhajan Singh who were deputed on quard duty at that house, the lock of said house was opened. The said house was searched. Dur­ing search from the ground floor of that house, different brands of liquor was recovered. Upon this, B.D. Bector, DSP made a complaint. The detail of the liquor recovered, was mentioned in para No.2 of the judgment. All the liquor bottles were taken into possession vide recovery memo in the presence of above said witnesses. No permit was found in the house for keeping the said liquor. On the basis of said complaint, formal FIR was registered. After investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 4. Charge under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Ex­cise Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. On the basis of said complaint, formal FIR was registered. After investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 4. Charge under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Ex­cise Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined B.D. Bector, DSP, South Sub Division, Chandigarh as PW-1, J.P.S. Sidhu, Joint Director (Sports), Chandigarh Administra­tion as PW-2, Constable Surinder Singh as PW­3, Narata Ram as PW-4, Mohinder Narula as PW-5, ASI Chatar Singh as PW- 6, Sl Puran Chand as PW-7, Bhushan Kumar, Ahlmad as PW-8, K.M. Varshney, Assistant Director, Cen­tral Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad as PW-9 and thereafter closed the evidence. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied all the allegations of prosecution and stated that on 12.02.1998 he along with his family was in possession of D-5, Civil Station, Bhathinda which was allotted to him being Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhathinda. He has no other residential accommodation anywhere. He has no concern with House No. 311, Sector-9/D, Chandigarh and was not in possession of the same in any manner. The said house was owned by Narinder Singh Achreja which was later on purchased by his paternal uncle Dr. Harinder Pal Singh. He has no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor from that house and a false case has been fabricated. 7. The accused was called upon to lead defence evidence. He examined Harmohan Singh Pal, Advocate, Ropar as DW-1 Tejinder Singh, Ahl­mad as DW-2, Davinder Kumar, Junior Assis­tant as DW-3, Rakesh Kumar, Library Clerk, O/o District & Sessions Judge, Bhathinda as DW-4, V.K. Jain, Assistant Manager, RBI, Sector-17, Chandigarh as DW-5 Ashok Kumar, Lab Atten­dant as DW-6, Vipan Kumar, Lab Attendant, Army School, Bhatinda Cantt as DW-7 and Yashodha Sharma, Civil Ahlmad as DW-8. 8. The learned trial Court observed that the fol­lowing question for determination has arisen in this case: “Whether on 12.02.1998 in the area in House No. 311, Sector-9, Chandigarh, the accused has retained in his possession the liquor bot­tles as detailed above, without holding any valid permit or licence?” 9. 8. The learned trial Court observed that the fol­lowing question for determination has arisen in this case: “Whether on 12.02.1998 in the area in House No. 311, Sector-9, Chandigarh, the accused has retained in his possession the liquor bot­tles as detailed above, without holding any valid permit or licence?” 9. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, determined the said question against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. It was held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was in possession of the house from which the alleged liquor has been recovered. 10. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judg­ment of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the U.T., Chandigarh. 11. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 155 days in filing the appeal has also been filed. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. 12. An application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C has also been filed for seeking leave to appeal. 13. The main controversy in the present case is whether the accused was in possession of House No. 311, Sector-9, Chandigarh on the date of raid. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that there is no evidence on the file to prove that on relevant date i.e 12.02.1998 the accused was in possession of the house from where the liquor was recovered. The accused was not present at the time of recovery. The house was sealed as per order of the Court. The learned trial Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that lock of the house was broken as the person who has opened the lock has not been examined. It has been fur­ther there observed that the broken lock or seal has also not been taken into possession. It has been further observed that no neighbour has been joined at the time of raid. So, in these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to assail the, findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 15. So, in view of the above discussion, the appli­cation for leave to appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. -------------------