RAMU 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/accused is directed against judgment dated 4th May, 2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna, setting aside thereby the judgment dated 27th January, 2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 411/2001 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of the M.P. Excise Act and sentencing him to suffer one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default to suffer three months' Rigorous Imprisonment, while remanding the case back to the Trial Court for fresh trial and decision as per law.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 6th April, 2000, at about 4.30 p.m., at Lambachak Badoda Road, on information from reliable sources, Manoj Mishra, the In-charge of Police Station, Kumbhraj, intercepted the Jeep No. MP 08/ F 1293, which was being driven by Ramu (the present appellant) and seized 23 boxes out of which 21 were containing around 48-48 quarters of Piano Company and two boxes were containing quarters of XXX Champion. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner was indulged in transporting the liquor in an illegal manner and driving the said vehicle without any valid licence. He was arrested on the spot. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. The Trial Court after trial, found the appellant guilty and hence convicted and sentenced him for the said offence. On appeal, the Appellate Court by the impugned judgment while setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, remanded the case back to the Trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to prosecution for exhibiting and proving the report of examination of seized liquor by the Excise Department and decide the case on merits afresh.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned judgment is manifest illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is contented that the Appellate Judge prima facie, exceeded his jurisdiction by providing an opportunity to the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna. In support of his submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.G.D.U. Vs. State of Maharashtra,1997 AIR(SC) 1579. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing the petition, the Appellate Court be directed to pass the judgment on the basis of the material available on record.