The conviction under the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act was overturned as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying inadequately on the accused's statement without sufficient corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision filed under Sections 401 r/w section 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kalahandi- Nuapada, At- Bhawanipatna in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhawanipatna in 2(a) C.C. No.257 of 2002 (T.R.No.237/2007) has been confirmed.

2. The Petitioner was subjected to prosecution in 2(a) C.C. No.257 of 2002 (T.R. No.237/2007) registered under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar &Orissa Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.04.2002 at about 4 P.M. while the Inspector of Excise, Kesinga was performing patrolling duty along with other official staff at village Muskuti, got reliable information and proceeded to the godown of the present petitioner and recovered 25 quintals of Mohua flower. On demand the accused-petitioner could not produce any authority for possession of the same. After observing due formalities, later on, the Excise Department had submitted P.R. under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act against the present petitioner.

After completion of investigation, complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and he was put to trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined as many as three witnesses and one document was exhibited. P.W.1 Biraja Kishor Rout was an independent witness to the seizure, P.W.2 Inspector of Excise, Kesinga and P.W.3 an Excise Constable. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. In proof of the defence, no witness was examined.

5. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found that the Petitioner was guilty for the offence under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo custody for a period of six months S.I and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of three months more.

6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhawanipatna in 2(a) C.C. No.257 of 2002 (T.R. No.237 of 2007) was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008 before the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, At-Bhawanipatna, by the petitioner. The learned appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 14.12.2010 has dismissed the appeal inter alia stating as under-

“6. It is not that the learned court below convicted the appellant solely on the basis of his such admission and it is apparent that the learned court below after discussing every aspect of the case as per evidence believed the prosecution case and convicted him of the offence as charged against him. The order, as rightly urged by the learned P.P. does not call for any interference and the sentence being very liberal also does not require any modification. The order of conviction and the imposition of the sentence as per the impugned judgment of the learned court below being right in all respect has to be and is hereby upheld. The appeal fails and in the result, therefore, it is ordered that:-

The appeal is hereby dismissed on contest and the impugned judgment dated 10.3.08 as passed by the J.M.F.C., Bhawanipatna convicting the appellant of the offence punishable U/s. 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and sentencing him thereunder and the order of confiscation of the seized properties as passed thereunder is hereby confirmed.”

7. The petitioner has challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in t