RAGHUBAR DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAGHUBAR Dayal has filed this revision against his conviction and concurrent sentences of six months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 60(a) and the same sentence Under Section 60(f) of the UP Excise Act.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that on 23 -8 -1964, the Excise Inspector B.T. Pirti raided the Applicant's house in Mohalla Vijaipur Reti, Shahjahanpur city, and recovered 7 1/4 bottle of illicit liquor and two patilis, two drums and two digris alleged to be used for illicit distillation from a locked room of his house. Hence his prosecution Under Sections 60(a) and 60(f) of the UP Excise Act.

(3.) IT appears that the Magistrate who initially tried the Applicant found him guilty under both the counts. The Applicant went up in appeal to the lower appellate court. That court allowed his appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that it should give an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the test report of the Excise Inspector and the Applicant an opportunity to produce such additional evidence as he may chose to produce. On remand, the learned Magistrate, who was different from the one who tried the Applicant on the earlier occasion, recorded the evidence of the Excise Inspector for the prosecution and the evidence of two witnesses for the Applicant. Thereafter on a consideration of the entire evidence, including the evidence recorded by his predecessor -in -office, he came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case. He therefore convicted and sentenced the Applicant to consecutive sentences of six months' R.I. Under Section 60(a) and 6 month,' R.I. Under Section 60(f) of the UP Excise Act. On appeal the lower appellate court affirmed the conviction of the Applicant under both the counts, but ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Hence this revision.