RAJESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order disposes of revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. which challenges the appellate Court's judgment dated 14.02.2019 pronounced in Criminal Appeal No.55/2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar confirming the judgment dated 05.05.2018 in Criminal Case No.333/2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar convicting the applicant under Section 34 (2) of the M. P. Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year's RI and fine of Rs.25,000-00 [two months additional SI in default].

(2.) As per the prosecution story on 12.10.2015, a team of Excise Department, pursuant to a tip of by an informant reached the house of the applicant who, on seeing the team members fled from the spot. The team searched and inspected the residence and found 45 boxes of country made liquor, totaling 405 bulk liters which was seized, Crime No.884/2015 under Sections 34 (1) (a) and 34 (2) of the M. P. Excise Act was registered against the applicant and after necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 06.04.2016 in absence of the applicant who remained at large. The applicant was subsequently arrested on 22.12.2017 and after trial he was convicted which was affirmed by the appellate Court, as already described earlier.

(3.) In the revision application preferred against the order of appellate Court, it has been stated that the independent witnesses have turned hostile; that the premises from where the liquor was allegedly recovered were searched without search warrant and no reasons were recorded for not obtaining search warrant; that no seizure was made from the possession of the applicant and that premises from where the seizure was made have not been shown to be owned by and in possession of the applicant and that the same witness who had recorded FIR, has also conducted the whole investigation which is against the principles laid down in Apex Court's judgment in the case of Mohan Lal v/s State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No.1880 of 2011]. On the basis of these grounds, an acquittal has been sought in this revision application.