SUKHRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this application are that the present applicant is facing trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Manawar, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 in Criminal Case No.1199/2019. After reading over the particulars of the offence to the applicant, the matter was first placed for recording of the prosecution evidence on 26.12.2019 . However, after lapse of 60 days, no evidence could be recorded, therefore, an application was filed by the present applicant under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail on the ground that after lapse of 60 days, as prescribed by Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C ., the trial by the Magistrate could not be concluded.

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that more than 50 bulk litre of country made liquor has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which he was transporting without any valid permit. Therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. Being aggrieved by this order, the present applicant presented a criminal revision which was also dismissed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar District Dhar (MP) in Criminal Revision No.30/2020 vide impugned order dated 12.03.2020 by contending that the reasons recorded by the Magistrate were just and proper; thus, no interference is called for.

(3.) Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that both the learned Courts did not consider the facts and law properly and they wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.