LAWS(CHH)-2006-3-30

SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF C G

Decided On March 29, 2006
SURESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF C.G. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 16-02-2006 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2005, affirming the judgment dated 13-01-2005 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 1587/2004 whereby the Applicant herein was convicted under Section-34(1)(a) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

(2.) THE factual matrix in brief is that on 26-08-2004 upon receiving a secret information that the Applicant herein was in possession of illicit country made liquor, PW-2 Excise Sub Inspector K.R. Taram Circle-B, Rajnandgaon, without obtaining a search warrant for want of time, proceeded to the spot and intercepted the Applicant herein on Khairagarh Road, Rajnandgaon and seized 30 liters country made liquor made from Mahua from the possession of the Appellant in a black coloured Jerrican. Shri K.L. Taram PW-2 examined the contents of the Jerrican by smelling, tasting and by performing litmus test and found that it was country made liquor, 30 bulk liters of country made liquor contained in a Jerrican was seized in presence of witnesses Ishwai PW-1 and Neeraj Shrivastava P W-3. THE Applicant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section-34(1)(a) of C.G. Excise Act.

(3.) SHRI S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the Applicant has pressed this revision only on the ground of non-compliance of Section-57 and 57-A of Act. It was contended that non-compliance of Section-57 and 57-A of the Act vitiates the prosecution. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court rendered in Santosh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 273/2005 decided on 29-09-2005 and Dubin Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 156/2005 decided on 30-09-2005 wherein it was held that non-compliance of provision of Section-57 and 57-A of the Act vitiates the prosecution. On the other hand, SHRI Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate argued in support of the impugned judgment.