MUKESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, preferred by the petitioner is directed against a judgment dated 18th September 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 341/ 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna, confirming thereby the judgment dated 8th August 2006 in Criminal Case No. 167/2006 by the Chief judicial Magistrate Guna (M.P.), convicting the petitioner-accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and sentencing him to a term of one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with default punishment of six months' in the event of non-payment of fine. The facts, in brief, just for the decision of this revision are that on 10th February 2006 on receiving reliable information through informer that one person is selling an illicit liquor at Katra Mohalla, raid was arranged under the supervision of Har Narayan, Head Constable with Police Force of Police Station Raghogarh and in furtherance of their action, they found the accused petitioner carrying 55 liters of illegal liquor in two plastic cans. Accused was arrested on the spot and the said illegal liquor in two plastic containers were seized. Thereafter, the seized illegal material was sent for examination to R.R. Dubey, Sub Inspector, Excise Department at Raghogarh (Guna). After due examination, by him, the seized material was found country-made liquor. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh from where the proceedings along with Ms opinion were forwarded to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325 of Cr.P.C. The trial Magistrate after recording the prosecution and defence evidence passed the Judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of the trial court, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the Sessions Judge Guna. The appellate court by affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate dismissed the appeal, hence, this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ accused is that the impugned judgments passed by the trial Magistrate as well as appellate court both are not in accordance with the law and the facts of the case, hence, they deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that in this case, the persecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the seized liquor was not chemically examined by the recognized agencies and further the prosecution was not able to prove the capacity of the containers seized from the possession of the accused having a liquor. It is contended that the petitioner/accused after judgment of trial/appellate court had spent more then nine months in custody. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the revision petition the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the trial Magistrate and maintained by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal be set aside.

(3.) The learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment.