The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to procedural irregularities and witness credibility issues.

JUDGMENT :

(SANDEEP KUMAR, J. )

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State Shri Shyam Kr. Singh.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum Special Judge, Excise Act, Madhubani in GO No. 89 of 2018 / Tr. No. 3251 of 2017 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 30 (a) of BIHAR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT , 2016 and sentenced him to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he would undergo six month imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the information given by one Pramod Kumar Mandal SI, Excise against the appellant and one Md. Chunnu under Section 30 (a) of Excise Act which was registered as GO No. 89 of 2018.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.05.2018. on secret information of Excise Superintendent of Madhubani, Pramod Kumar Mandal SI, Excise Sadar, (Informant) along with Excise Constables raided poultry farm of Tej Narayan Sahani at village Kateya. It is alleged that during search, the raiding party found that a man was sleeping outside the poultry farm whereas another person was sleeping inside the room. On being asked about their names and address, the person who was sleeping inside the room disclosed his name as Tej Narayan Sahani whereas another person disclosed his name as Md. Ismail. It is alleged that in their presence the raiding party searched the poultry farm and found a room locked and after taking the key from Tej Narayan Sahani, the raiding party unlocked the room and found that many cartons of Royal Stag Whisky were kept in that room. After taking Tej Narayan Sahani in their custody, the raiding party counted the cartons, which were 240 in number. It is alleged that the informant prepared the seizure list at the place of occurrence and took signature of the villager on the seizure list. Thereafter arrested the appellant under Section 30 (a) of Excise Act. After arrest, it has further been stated by Tej Narayan Sahani that he has engaged Md. Ismail for feeding the chicken.

5. The police submitted the charge-sheet and on the basis of the same, cognizance was taken against the appellant and Md. Chunnu and thereafter Charge was framed against both the accused Under Section 30(a) of BIHAR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT , 2016.

6. The prosecution examined six witnesses, out of which four are the member of raiding party including the informant and PW 5 is villager and seizure list witness who has stated in his cross-examination that he put his signature on plain paper. PW 6 is an Advocate clerk who has identified the signature of the chemical analyst.

7. The defence has examined two witnesses DW 1 namely Lal Bachan Saday, who has categorically stated that the appellant is engaged in fish business and the DW 2 is villager who has also categorically stated that there is no poultry farm in the village and the appellant is engaged in Fish business.The Chemical Analyst has not been examined.

8. PW 2 namely Santosh Kumar Jha, Police Constable has stated in his cross-examination that out of total 240 cartons only 10 cartoons were opened which were neither sealed nor any parcha was prepared and in paragraph no. 11 of cross-examination of PW 2 has stated that there is no verification of the fact that as to whether the poultry farm belongs to Tej Narayan Sahani or not.

9. PW 4, being informant has also stated that there is no document to prove that Tej Narayan Sahani is owner of the poultry farm and also, there is contradiction in the statement given by the PWs in the Court regarding number of cartons opene