Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
ARUL - Appellant
Versus
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 659 of 2013; Miscellaneous Petition No. 2 of 2013
Decided on : 08-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
A. Arasu Ganesan, Adv., G. Ramar, Adv.
The duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the fatal nature of non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 32(c) of TNP Act.
Headnote:
TNP Act - Smuggling of Brandy - Section 4(1)(a)(a) of TNP Act - Section 32(c) of TNP Act
Fact of the Case:
The accused was found smuggling 528 Brandy bottles without a permit. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, which was modified by the appellate court. The accused filed a Criminal Revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and emphasized the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It noted the failure to comply with mandatory procedures under Section 32(c) of the TNP Act.
Issues: Contradictions in prosecution evidence, compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 32(c) of TNP Act
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 32(c) of TNP Act is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner, shall be refunded, and the bail bond executed by the petitioner shall stand discharged.
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed as against the order of conviction made in S.T.C.No.487 of 2011 dated 08.04.2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore, which was modified by the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in C.A.No.7 of 2013 dated 25.04.2013.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 10.10.2011 when PW-1 along with PW-2 to PW-5 were held in vehicle checking duty at Aalpettai Police check post, they seized 528 Brandy bottles from white colour ambassador car bearing registration No:TN-31-A-2610 which was driven by the accused namely Arul from Pondicharry to Cuddalore.
3. The accused has smuggled the above said Brandy bottles without having permit or license to carry the same. Immediately after the said seizure PW-1 informed the same to Amirthalingam, PW-6, Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly the accused and the seized articles and the ambassador car were produced and handed over by PW-1 to PW-6 at New Town Police Station, Cuddalore.
4. Consequently, F.I.R. was registered against the accused in Crime No.568 of 2011 for the offence under Section 4(1)(a)(a) of TNP Act and the case was taken up for investigation by PW-7, the Inspector of Police. After completion of investigation PW-7 filed final report charging the accused / revision petitioner for the offence under Section 4(1)(a)(a) of TNP Act and the case was taken up for trial in S.T.C.No.487 of 2011 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore.
5. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges. On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-7 and marked Exhibit P-1 to P-3 and M.O.s-1 and 2 were marked. There was no oral and documentary evidence on the side of the accused.
6. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence the Learned Magistrate, come to the conclusion that the accused was found guilty of the above offence and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs -2000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month.
7. Aggrieved over the sentence, the accused filed the appeal in C.A.No.7 of 2013 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and the Learned District Judge modified the conviction imposed on the accused by reducing the sentence from 3 months to 1 month. The fine amount ordered by Trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed.
8. I heard Mr.A.Arasu Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Ramar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused and entire materials available on record.
9. It is seen that according to the version of PW-1, SSI Gunasekaran, on the date of occurrence i.e., on 10.10.2011 at 7.00 P.M. when he was involved in vehicle checking at Aalpettai Police check post along with his police party, he seized 528 Brandy bottles from the accused in his white color ambassador car bearing Registration No.TN-31-A-2610 while he driven the car from Pondicherry to Cuddalore.
10. It is his further version that immediately after seizure he informed the same to PW-6, S.I. Amirthalingam and handed over the accused to the S.I. Amirthalingam at Police Station. However, contrarily it is found that in his cross examination, he deposed that PW-6, S.I Amirthalingam came to the place of occurrence at 7:30 P.M and Inspector Saravanadevendran, PW-7 also came to the spot at 7:30 P.M and obtained statement from PW-1.
11. According to the evidence of PW-2, SSI Venkatesan, during his cross, he stated that PW-1 did not inform PW-6 Amirthalingam, he further deposed that PW-7, Inspector of Police has not come to the place of occurrence. No passport was given to them to go to Aalpettai check post and they were orally informed by PW6, S.I. Amirthalingam that they should go to vehicle checking.
12. Pw-3 Head Constable Selvam during his cross stated that on t
