NATHULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Nathulal and one Manmohan were tried before Assistant Collector and Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer under sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). THE third accused Kanhaiyalal was also tried along with them under section 54/65 of the Act, but he was acquitted.

(2.) THE gist of the offences charged was that they transported 30 bottles of liquor without any licence or permit. THE prosecution case was mainly supprior ted by P.W.9 Hari Singh, whose statement was corroborated by ocular and other documentary evidence. THE learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner Nathulal and co-accused Manmohan under section 54 of the Act and sentenced each of them to one month's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which to undergo farther simple imprisonment far a period of two months each. THE third co-accused, namely, Kanhaiyalal' father of Manmohan and father in-law of the accused-petitioner, was acquitted by the learned Magistrate, since the evidence did not established beyond doubt the offence of abetment against him. THE Petitioner and Manmohan preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer, against their conviction and sentence. THE learned Sessions Judge after reappeciation of evidence held both the accused guilty of the charge framed against them. He, however, extended the benefit of section 6 of the probation of Offenders Act to accused Manmohan. THE conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused-petitioner was maintained. THE accused-petitioner thereupon preferred the present revision petition. 2. Tersely speaking, shorn of all unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on receiving a secret information that liquor was being transported and smuggled, P.W. 9 Harisingh and his party stood ready at the octroi out post Mirshali, Ajmer, on August 16, 1968, to check and apprehend the smugglers. THE accused petitioner and his brother in-law Manmohan came on a Motor cycle No. RJZ-3924 at nearly 4.30, p.m., on August 16, 1968. At that time they were carrying liquor in a bag and a, 'katta' : At the relevant time the petitioner was driving the motor cycle. THE petitioner and the co-accused Man Mohan singh the excise party turned back the motor cycle No. RJ 2 3924 and the excise party chased them in two jeeps After going for little distance accused Man Mohan alignted from the motor cycle near the culvert with the bag and the 'katta' containing the liquor and the petitioner drove away the motor cycle. THE petitioner was chased by the members of the party sitting in jeep No. 109, but he could make good his escape. P.W.9 Harisingh and his associates apprehended Man Mohan, but in the intervening time he engaged himself in breaking the liquor bottles and the container. From the possession of accused Man Mohan a bag. containing seven bottles of liquor intact and 13 broken bottles, were recovered Besides that a plastic container measuring nearly ten bottles of liquor wrapped in a gunny bag, was also seized. Sample of the liquor for analysis, was taken on the spot. THE sample and the seized bottles were sealed on the spot in the presence of the 'motbirs'. THE seizure memo is Ex P/l, which bears the signatures of P.W. 9 Hari Singh and other persons who witnessed the seizure of the articles. THE site plan Ex. P/2 was also prepared. THE sample of the liquor was sent to the Chemical Examiner and Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for analysis. THE report is Ex. P/9 After usual investigation a complaint was filed against three persons, namely, Kanhaiya Lal (acquitted by the trial court), Man Mohan (released by the appellate court on executing the bond under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958) and the petitioner Nathulal. THE petitioner Nathulal, in his statement under sec. 342, Cr.P.C , pleaded ignorance stated that he did not know as to how to drive the motor cycle. He further stated that a false case was foisted against him.

(3.) MR. S. N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed strong reliance on Gurdayal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3) and Maharaja Prithvi Singhji Bhimsinghji vs. State of Bombay (now Rajasthan) (4). The decision of these cases were rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases which are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as such, these cases are also of no avail to the accused-petitioner. The jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of revisional powers is highly restricted. It is not required to reappraise the evidence The jurisdiction under section 439, Cr.P.C., is normally required to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. I find to reason to take a different view of the evidence than taken by the two courts below.