LAWS(MPH)-1996-12-3

MADANLAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On December 13, 1996
MADANLAL SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI S. S. Garg with Ku. Rekha Shrivastava and Shri C. S. Ujjainia for the petitioner. Shri S. H. Sen, Dy. Govt. Advocate with Shri A. Salim, Panel Lawyer for the prosecution. The petitioner is hereby assailing the order passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone dated 20-12-1995 by which he has dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner challenging the charge which has been framed against him for offences punishable under provisions of Sections 34-A and 49-C of Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. Excise Act for short ).

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief can be stated as hereunder. On 27-2-1994 at about 8. 40 p. m. the hut belonging to accused Molkia was raided by the police and they found 2 drums of illicit liquor in the said hut when wife of Molkia was present in the said hut. The said drums were seized by police under Panchanama in presence of Panch witnesses. Molkia was arrested by the police six months thereafter. When Molkia was arrested, he made a statement while in custody of police that those two drums which were seized from the said hut were belonging to present petitioner Madanlal. Molkia showed his willingness to point out petitioner Madanlal. The police went along with accused Molkia to Madanlal and accused Molkia pointed out Madanlal. Police made present petitioner Madanlal as co-accused in said case and thereafter challan was filed against present petitioner.

(3.) A prayer was made to the trial Court by the present petitioner to discharge him which was rejected by the trial Court holding that the statement given to police by Molkia while in the custody in view of provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereafter referred to as Evidence Act for short) was sufficient to make out aprimafacie case against him. A revision petition was preferred against that order by the present petitioner which was decided by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone who confirmed the view taken by the trial Magistrate.