BABULAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" hereafter) by the accused -applicant is against the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 149/2001 confirming the conviction under section 34(l)(a) M.P. Excise Act and sentence under sub -section (2) thereunder (as amended from 4.8.2000) to RI for one year and fine of Rs.25,000/ - with usual default clause.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 6.6.2001, PSI Vivek Chauhan PW5 along with his associates had gone to village Hajipur with a view to execute arrest warrant of a warrantee. There an informant gave him information that a person was looking for conveyance to transport liquor illegally, therefore he went to the place said to have been occupied by the delinquent. As he reached there with his companions, the delinquent, along with one container, started running. He also left behind some containers. They chased and apprehended him. His identity was discovered as the accused -applicant and the material with him appeared to he liquor hence he was asked by PSI Vivek Chauhan about the license to which he replied in the negative. Accordingly, seizure proceedings were undertaken. In the presence of two panch vide Ex.P -2 -C, 288 quarter bottles of Whisky, 350 quarter bottles of plain liquor as also 20 bottles of plain liquor, in all 129 hulk liters placed in different (Kattis) were seized from the accused -applicant. He was also arrested Ex.P -3. He was taken to Police Station Sarangpur and FIR Ex.P -4 was reduced to writing. As the seized material was opined by Excise Sun -Inspector PW 1 G.L. Jonvar to he liquor, the accused was challenged in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangpur, for offence of section 34(1)(a). (2) M.P. Excise Act ("Act" hereafter). He having abjured his guilt, case went to trial.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the accused -applicant is that the learned trial Magistrate lacked initial jurisdiction, therefore, the conviction in question is liable to be struck down.