UMESH KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 05.06.2014, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Simdega in G.R. No. 257/2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 54/13, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 47(f) of Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo SI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo additional SI for 2 months, has been affirmed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as per the written application of informant-A.S.I.-Maheshwari Prasad, in brevity is that on 12.08.10 at about 8:45 P.M. he was on petrolling duty with armed police. Near Bolba more at Simdega-Rourkela main road, one truck was coming from Rourkela. When the truck saw the police party, stopped his vehicle and two persons tried to escape away from there. They were apprehended with the help of police party. When they were asked, one of them revealed his name as Nafis Anwar as owner of the truck and another revealed his name as Umesh Kumar Bhagat @ Bablu as businessman of mahua. The truck was loaded with 140 bags of mahua. When they were asked to produce the document they could not answer satisfactorily. It is also alleged that when he inquired about owner book of the vehicle, it was written in owner book, the number of vehicle as JH-20A-4065 but the number plate of the vehicle was shown as C.G.-14Z-B0161. It is alleged that both the persons were arrested under the provision of Penal Code, 1860 and Excise Act. He seized the vehicle and mahua and prepared seizure list.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the I.O. found the case true and submitted the chargesheet and cognizance was taken and charges were framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial.