LAWS(RAJ)-2022-11-148

PAPU SINGH SHRI RAN SINGH Vs. STATE

Decided On November 09, 2022
Papu Singh Shri Ran Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr.Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Jagdish Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that an F.I.R. bearing no. 0040/2020 lodged at P.S. Mandar, District Sirohi was registered for the offences under Ss. 19, 54, 14, 57 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, who is presently appointed as Circle Inspector Mandar Sirohi. It was averred therein that on 6/4/2020 at about 07:25 p.m., he received intelligence that in Jalampura Village, illicit Haryana-made liquor was being stored at one 'Natwar Singh Farm', and on the basis of such information, a raid was conducted in accordance with Sec. 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and that at about 08:00 p.m.; when the raid was conducted, the police party saw three persons, who upon seeing them, attempted to flee the scene, of whom two were apprehended by the police authorities. And that, the apprehended persons revealed themselves to be Kurupal Singh S/o Natwar Singh, Mehraram S/o Dhana Ji and stated that the third person, who escaped, was one Janak Singh s/o Natwar Singh. Upon further information proferred by the apprehended persons, a total of 40 sacks of illicit liquor, in which 480 bottles of 'Old Monk XXX Rum, 750 ml. for Sale in Delhi Only' was found, and subsequently, was seized by the police authorities. The apprehended persons further stated that Janak Singh purchased the said illicit liquor from one Papu Singh S/o Ran Singh (present petitioner), who had a blue colored tractor.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the present petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of such confessional statement made by the co-accused persons, which is in clear violation of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872.