CHANNU RAM SINHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case put-forth by the prosecution in brief is that on 05.06.2008 Excise Sub Inspector (PW-4) received a secret information regarding the fact that the accused/applicant was keeping illicit liquor in his house, and in furtherance of the same he raided the spot and found 32 liters of illicit liquor contained in three jerrycans, 10 liters in each. This apart, another jerrycan containing two liters of mahua liquor was also found kept therein. Since there was an apprehension in the mind of Excise Sub Inspector of the said illicit liquor being disposed of by the accused/applicant elsewhere, he proceeded to the spot without even obtaining the search warrant. After examination of the substance seized under Ex.P-4 the same was found to be the mahua liquor vide Ex.P-7. Subsequently, the procedural formalities were undertaken followed by registration of FIR against the accused/applicant for the offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

(2.) Learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 08.09.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.353/2008 convicted the accused/applicant under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.25,000/- plus default stipulation. Findings recorded by learned Magistrate have received affirmation vide judgment impugned dated 03.10.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.127/2008. Hence this revision.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/applicant submits that though the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet both the Courts below have recorded an erroneous finding convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant as described above. She submits that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and even the evidence of the witnesses hailing from the excise department suffers from innumerable contradictions and omissions, but this serious lapse on their part has been turned a blind eye by both the Courts below. She further submits that even the exclusive possession of the accused/applicant over the liquor seized by the prosecution has not been established as the independent witnesses have stated that in the house in question number of inmates were there at the relevant time.