SOM DISTILLERIES LTD Vs. STATE MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant have preferred this revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the order dated 9/10/2009 passed by the learned Ist. Addl. Sessions Judge, Khargone, West Nimar passed in Cr. Appeal No. 121 /08 whereby while disposing the appeal preferred by the accused persons also directed for confiscation of the seized liquor which belonged to the present applicant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are: the Excise Police of Kasrawad District Khargone on 20/8/1995 near Toll Tax Barrier Khalghat inspected Truck bearing registration MP-14-B-6103 and found therein 576 containers each having 12 bottles genius whisky and 25 containers having 48 quarters genius whisky. Accused Dinkar Singh and Shankar Lal were found present in the concerned truck. On investigation, it was found that the liquor was to be transported from Bhopal to Jaipur on a particular route for which the valid permit has been issued by the competent authority. Instead of that, both the accused persons have illegally transported it towards Khalghat from where the liquor has been seized on which basis the Excise Police registered a case and charge-sheeted the accused persons for contravention of the permit before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khargone. Learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 10.9.08 held both the accused persons Dinkar Singh and Shankarlal guilty of the offence under section 34Aof the Excise Act and sentenced them accordingly. But for the seized liquor, it is directed that after the period of appeal the liquor which has been given on Supurdginama of the applicant will remain in possession of Supurdgidar who is shown to be the owner of the liquor. When the accused persons preferred Cr. Appeal No. 121/08 before the Addl. Sesssions Judge, Khargone, the learned Appellate Court while affirming the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate, also directed for confiscation of the seized liquor, hence, aggrieved by the said part of judgment, the applicant being the rightful owner of liquor, has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Learned P.P. for the State supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.