STATE OF M P Vs. BRIJNARAYAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State/appellant has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offence under Sections 13 and 16 of the Excise Act, punishable under Sections 34, 36 and 37 of the said Act.

(2.) IT was alleged that during inspection by the officials of the Excise Department, on 13-9-92, they found that the respondents/accused without paying requisite excise fees, collected 400 bottles of liquors in the stock of the shop. The case was filed. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty on 20-11-92 on the date of framing of charge. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 15-12-1992. On 15-12-92 it was adjourned to 18-12-92. On 18-12-92, the case was adjourned as the witnesses could not be summoned. The summons were accordingly issued for the next date, i. e. , 27-1-93 as reflected in the order-sheet. On 27-1-93, the prosecution witnesses were present, but the learned Magistrate could not examine them, as he was busy in other matter as mentioned in the order-sheet dated 27-1-93. The order-sheet dated 27-1-93 does not show as to how many witnesses were present and whether they were bound over for the next day. The order-sheet does not disclose that summons were required to be issued. The case was adjourned to 6-2-93. On this date," none had appeared on behalf of the Excise Department whereas witnesses namely Hirasingh and Budharam were present. The learned Magistrate questioned witnesses as to how they were present in Court without there being any summons/notice to them. Their statements were not recorded and the acquittal has been made on the ground that the witnesses were not produced by the prosecution while this is not correct position.

(3.) SHRI S. M. A. Naqvi, Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/appellant contended that the procedure adopted by the Trial Magistrate is illegal and contrary to law. Shri T. C. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents/accused on the other hand supported the order of acquittal.