SURENDER KUMAR @ BILLU AND ORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioners when the matter is called out. The petition can be disposed of on perusal of the record of the case.

(2.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed in appeal upholding the conviction of the petitioners under section 61 (1) (14) of Punjab Excise Act. In the appeal the sentence of the appellants were reduced to 3 months each from six months each and fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The revision has been preferred on the ground that the the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and has not taken care of material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses into account. It is pleaded that recovery of 13 card board boxes containing 24 half bottles of liquor was mentioned in the charge framed against the petitioners. Only 52 samples were taken and sent to laboratory for analysis so conviction was bad. It is also submitted that the petitioners had not violated the notification issued by the Delhi Administration under Punjab Excise Act.

(3.) It is settled law that in a revision petition, the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if sitting in appeal and come to a different conclusion . Order of lower court cannot be set aside lightly. The court while dealing with the revision petition can only look into the aspect if a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place or if the judgment was not based on the evidence on record. Revision Court can interfere only if findings of lower court are perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from any error of law.