STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. SHYAMKUMAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong in respect of the charge of the commission of the offence under Section 53(a) Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910, hereinafter referred to as EB and AE Act, framed against the present respondent in Cril.(P) Case No. 1 of 2001.

(2.) According to the appellant, the brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- On 10.06.1995 at about 3.30 a.m., a police party of Tamenglong Police Station lead by the then O.C., K. Rupachandra Singh of the said Police Station along with the Deputy Commandant of the 5th Bn. of Manipur Rifle at Khongajaron conducted search operation in the quarter of the present respondent, who was then a rifleman of the 5th Bn. MR. During the search, one white plastic jerricane of 5 litres capacity containing full of illicit distilled liquor was found concealed inside the quarter by covering with clothes. The said jerricane containing illicit liquor was seized by preparing a formal seizure memo in presence of the witnesses. A FIR Case being No. 38(6)95 TML P.S. U/S 53(a) of the EB and AE Act was registered and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present respondent. On 11.06.95 at about 11 a.m., the accused (present respondent) was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong at his residence. When the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong explained to the accused (the present respondent) about the offence u/s 53 (a) EB and AE Act, in respect of which charge-sheet was submitted, he pleaded guilty. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong convicted the accused (the present respondent) for the commission of the said offence and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100 which was paid on the same day. Consequent upon the said conviction, the accused (the present respondent) was dismissed from his service on 15.06.1995. Then, as against the conviction and sentence, the accused (the present respondent) filed a revision case before the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West disputing the said fact of his pleading guilty. The learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West, after hearing; the parties, set aside the impugned conviction and sentence dated 11.06.1995 and remanded the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong for de novo trial.

(3.) In the said de novo trial, 3 PWs were examined on behalf of the prosecution. After due proceeding of the case and hearing of the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong passed the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 by which the accused (the present respondent) was acquitted of the charge of the commission of the offence u/s 53(a) EB and AE Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong was of the view that there was no evidence to prove that the seized article was illicit liquor. Further, in the opinion of the trial Judge, in the absence of any documents showing that the concerned police officers were authorized to investigate the offence punishable under Section EB and AE Act, the concerned O.C. of the Tamenglong P.S., who investigated the present case, was not authorized to investigate the said offence and to submit the charge-sheet. Furthermore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamenglong was of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, there was no possibility of directing for making re-investigation of the case by a competent authority inasmuch as the limitation period prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would not permit taking cognizance of the offence after more than three years.