Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Bhushan Mahto S/o Arjun Mahto – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Rev. No. 979 of 2012
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Excise Act - Seizure of Wine - Section 47(a) of Excise Act - Summary: The court considered the prosecution's case of seizure of wine from a vehicle and the subsequent conviction of the accused under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. The defense argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the seizure and the nature of the seized articles. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, as the chemical examination report was not exhibited, and the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be a ground to sustain the conviction. The court set aside the judgments of conviction and allowed the criminal revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused were found in possession of 10 cartoons of wine in a vehicle, and the subsequent trial led to their conviction under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, as the chemical examination report was not exhibited, and the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be a ground to sustain the conviction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the seizure and the nature of the seized articles beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must prove the seizure and the nature of the seized material beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of conviction and allowed the criminal revision petition.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro Camp at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2011 whereby the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 47(a) of Excise Act has been sustained, but the sentence has been modified and reduced to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause. The petitioners were convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 10.02.2011 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat in G.R. Case No. 554 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 145 of 2011 for offence under Section 47(a) of Excise Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that out of 11 charge-sheeted witnesses, only five have deposed before the learned court below and out of them, two seizure witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 have turned hostile, although they have identified their signature on the seizure list, which were marked as Exhibit-1 and 1/1. PW-2 was also declared hostile. The learned counsel also submitted that PW-4 was the informant of the case and was a police officer. He submits that neither the seized articles have been produced/exhibited nor the chemical examination report has been produced/exhibited before the learned court below. He submits that in such circumstances, neither the seizure has been proved nor the contents of the seized articles have been proved to be wine. The entire case rests on the evidence of two police officers i.e. PW-4 and PW-5. He submits that although the investigating officer has stated that the seized wine was tested after investigation, but the test report has not been exhibited.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in such circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners be set-aside.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the learned courts below have scrutinized the materials on record and have recorded concurrent findings regarding the offence committed by the petitioners. He submits that the seizure witnesses who turned hostile, have not disputed their signature on the seizure list and the learned court below has considered this aspect of the matter and has recorded that generally the seizure witnesses become hostile because they do not want to take enmity with the accused persons of the locality and there is no evidence on record that the accused persons had any inimical relation with the informant and the police officers examined in the case as PW-4 and PW-5 who have fully supported the prosecution case regarding seizure of 10 cartoons of wine from the Maruti van in which they were travelling during the date and time of occurrence. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any perversity and there being no material irregularity, the impugned judgments do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, on 10.07.2007 at about 8 pm, on the basis of secret information, the informant- sub-inspector of police along with armed forces went to NH-23 at Petarbar and checked a Maruti van and found total 10 cartoons of wine. There were two persons in the van who are the petitioners before this Court. Upon asking, they disclosed their name and on demanding paper, they could not show any document justifying the possession of 10 cartoons of wine. Wine was seized by the informant in presence of independent witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-3.
8. After investigati
The prosecution must prove the seizure and the nature of the seized material beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not suffic....
The sufficiency of evidence, including the requirement for proper chemical analysis and the examination of independent witnesses, is crucial in determining the sustainability of a conviction in the e....
The court upheld that convictions can rely on official witness testimony even without independent corroboration if the evidence is credible, and absence of chemical analysis report does not invalidat....
Conviction for illicit liquor possession cannot be based solely on non-chemical tests; lack of adequate evidence warrants acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The conviction under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act was set aside due to prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt based on procedural violations.
Non-compliance of statutory provisions, lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, errors in lower court orders.
The testimony of official witnesses can be the sole basis for conviction if it is reliable and consistent, even in the absence of independent witnesses.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
