M.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-5-1973 passed by the Magistrate First Class, Barmer, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act.
2 The prosecution case in brief is that on 26-31971 the police party raided the house of Heeralal respondent and on search being taken in the presence of the 'motbirs' the respondents Pokarchand and Mangilal w ere found selling the liquor. 4 bottles of 'Gulab', 21 bottles of plain liquor & 34 empty bottles were recovered They were sealed at the spot. Seizure memo was prepared and the accused persons, after investigation, were challenged.
3. After trial it was found that the liquor was seized from the custody of the respondents, but as no expert was examined on the point as to ether the liquid recovered was liquor, so relying on an authority of this Court State v. Sanwalram 1970 R.L.W 566 the respondents were acquitted and it was also observed that no evidence has been Jed by the prosecution as to when the samples were taken and further whether the samples were sealed and the samples reached the Assistant Chemical Examiner in the sealed condition. So the learned Magistrate founded the judgment of acquittal on these two grounds
4. Dis-satisfied with the judgment of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the report of the Assistant Director, Chemical section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory, was placed on record before hearing of the arguments, and as such, it should have been read in evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that even if this report is read in evidence, still this part of the evidence is lacking in the case that the samples of the liquor seized, reached the hands of the Assistant Chemical Examiner in an untampered condition In the absence of this evidence the respondents cannot be connected with the commission of the offence The learned Counsel also urged (hat more than seven years have passed and it would not be proper and justified to allow additional evidence to be led on ibis aspect of the case.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced before me by both the sides. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate was wrong in excluding, the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner from evidence. Under Section 510, Cr.P.C. the report was admissible in evidence. It is true that from the report it is proved that' the samples of the liquid, examined, were found to contain alcohol and so-the liquid was liquor. Bui still this evidence is lacking in the case that the samples of the liquid recovered from the possession of the respondents reached in an untanpered condition. As seven years have passed, it would not be just that any additional evidence may be allowed to be recorded, at prayed for by the learned Public Prosecutor
7. I, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal, so it is hereby dismissed.