SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(UK) 493

2012 (1) N.C.C. 26
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta
Government Appeal No. 204 of 2007
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Appellant
Versus
GANESH RAM – Respondent
Decided on : 12.09.2011

For the Appellants : Shri Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder
For the Respondent:Shri Lalit Sharma and Shri Deepak Bisht, Advocates

Headnote:(A) Criminal trial — In a case where if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence — Then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted — Also, in reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused — Court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. (Para 12)

       (B) Criminal trial — Illegal importing of foreign liquor in district Pithoragarh — Pleaded that due to accused's altercation with the Excise Inspector on the matter of checking of the Jeep — That alleged recovery was planted — Held — That it was not probable for the Excise Inspector and his companion staff, who had no enmity or animosity with the accused from earlier, to plant a huge number of bottles of English liquor from the possession of the accused, merely on some altercations on the question of checking. (Para 13)

       (C) Criminal trial — Recovery of 120 bottles of Rum and 10 Bottles of Whisky, from the accused's jeep, registered in the name of his wife — Held — That the chemical analysis of the recovered liquor would be necessary in the case of country made liquor — But in view of Rule 282 of the Excise Manual — It was not necessary in every case that the recovered liquor might be sent for chemical analysis — In the present case, recovered liquor was very well labelled and sealed with apparent look of production of Government distillery — Also, the same was tested by the Excise inspector, who might have an experience of testing liquor — Therefore, an analysis thereof by public analyst, not necessary. (Paras 15 to 21)

       (D) Criminal trial — Minor discrepancies — A settled principle of law that in every criminal trial, minor contradictions and discrepancies are always bound to occur — Because the power of observance by various witnesses at a point of time and description of the incident in the court at different times, varies — Also, the retention of the sequence of incident and the minor details in the memory and narrating the same on being enquired by the defence counsel in the court, varies from person to person, depending upon many factors — Held — Minor discrepancies or contradictions, if they are not shattering the very substance of the prosecution case, should be ignored by the court.

        (Para 22)

       (E) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sec. 452(1) and U.P. Excise Act, 1910, Sec. 72 — U/s 60(1)(a) of the Excise Act, the vehicle used for commission of the said offence was confiscated — In appeal of the accused, learned Sessions Judge held that the proceedings of confiscation were to be initiated separately u/s 72 Excise Act — In appeal of the State, held that the Magistrate had wide powers u/s 452(1), Criminal code to dispose of the property, used in commission of the offence, including to confiscate such vehicle — Also the powers of the Collector u/s 72, Excise Act are in addition to the said powers of the Magistrate u/s 452, Cr.P.C. (Paras 23 and 24)

        ¼v½ nkf.Md fopkj.k & ;fn fdlh dsl esa izLrqr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij nks fopkj laHko gSa] ,d rks vfHk;qDr ds nks"k ds ckjs esa vkSj nwljh mlds funksZ"k gksus ds ckjs esa rc vfHk;qDr ds fgr ds fopkj dks Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vfHk;qDr ds nks"k ds ckjs esa fu.kZ; ysus esa Hkh & U;k;ky; dks laHkkoukvksa ds ekud ds vk/kkj ij lk{; dk vf/kewY;kadu] fo'ys"k.k vkSj ewY;kadu djuk pkfg, vkSj bldk okLrfod ewY; vkSj lkf{k;ksa dk vfHkizk;% tkuuk pkfg,A ¼izLrj 12½

       ¼c½ nkf.Md fopkj.k & fiFkkSjkx<+ tuin esa fons'kh 'kjkc dk vfu;fer vk;kr & ;g rdZ fn;k x;k Fkk fd dfFkr cjkenxh vfHk;qDr ds }kjk vkcdkjh fujh{kd ls >xM+k djus ds dkj.k thi dh tkap djus ds nkSjku fofu;ksftr dh xbZ Fkh & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd vkcdkjh fujh{kd ,oa LVkQ ds fy, ;g laHko ugha Fkk] ftl dh dksbZ 'k=qrk] cSjHkko vfHk;qDr ds lkFk iwoZ ls pyh vk jgh Fkh ftl otg ls os vaxzsth 'kjkc dh cM+h la[;k esa cksrysa vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls cjken djus dh ;kstuk dsoy psfdax ds le; dgk lquh ds dkj.k cukrsA ¼izLrj 13½

       ¼l½ nkf.Md fopkj.k & vfHk;qDr dh iRuh ds uke esa iathÑr thi ls 120 cksrysa je] 10 cksrysa fogLdh dh cjkenxh & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd cjken 'kjkc dh jklk;fud fo'ys"k.k ls tkap djkuk yksdy mRikfnr 'kjkc ds ekeys esa vko';d gksrk gS & ijUrq fu;e 282] vkcdkjh eSuqvy ds ifjis{; esa izR;sd dsl esa ;g vko';d ugha Fkk fd cjken 'kjkc dks jklk;fud fo'ys"k.k gsrq Hkstk tkrk & izLrqr dsl esa cjken dh xbZ 'kjkc cgqr vPNh rjg ls yscYM vkSj lhYM bl izdkj dh xbZ Fkh rkfd ljdkjh fMfLVyjh dk mRiknu yxs & vkSj mls vkcdkjh fujh{kd }kjk VsLV Hkh fd;k x;k Fkk ftls 'kjkc dh tkap djus dk vuqHko Fkk & blfy, ljdkjh fo'ys"kd }kjk mldh tkap djkbZ tkuh vko';d ugha FkhA ¼izLrj 15 ls 21½

       ¼n½ nkf.Md fopkj.k & rqPN fHkérk,¡ & dkuwu dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd izR;sd QkStnkjh fopkj.k esa NksVh NksVh fHkérk,¡ vkSj fojks/kkHkkl lnSo gh fo|eku jgrs gSa & pw¡fd vusdksa lkf{k;ksa dh voyksdu dh 'kfDr ?kVuk ds le; vkSj fooj.k ds lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; esa fofHké volj ij fHké fHké gksrh gS & vkSj ?kVuk dh fujarjrk vkSj NksVh NksVh foojf.k;k¡ Hkh izfroknh ds odhy dks tkap djus ds le; c;ku djrs gq, ;knnk'r esa i`Fkd i`Fkd O;fDr }kjk rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fHké fHké gksrh gS & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd ;fn NksVh fofHkérk,¡ vkSj fojks/kkHkkl] vfHk;kstu ds dsl dks izHkkfor ugha djrh rks U;k;ky; }kjk vuns[kk dj nsuk pkfg,A

        ¼izLrj 22½+

       ¼;½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 452¼1½ vkSj mÙkj izns'k vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1910] /kkjk 72 & vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 60(1)(a) ds vUrxZr mDr vijk/k dkfjr fd;s tkus gsrq tks okgu iz;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk] dks tCr dj fy;k x;k Fkk & vfHk;qDr dh vihy esa fu.kZ; nsrs gq, l= U;k;k/kh'k }kjk dgk x;k fd tCr djus dh dk;Zokgh /kkjk 72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr i`Fkd ls dh tkuh pkfg, Fkh & jkT; dh vihy esa fu.kZ; fn;k x;k fd n.Mkf/kdkjh dks /kkjk 452(1) CrPC ds rgr vf/kdkj izkIr gS fd og vijk/k esa iz;qDr lEifÙk] tCr fd;s x;s okgu lfgr] dks uhyke@foØ; dj ns & vkSj /kkjk 72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr ftyk/kh'k dks Hkh /kkjk 452 CrPC ds vUrxZr n.Mkf/kdkjh ds lkFk lkFk vf/kdkj fn;s x;s gSaA

        ¼izLrj 23 vkSj 24½

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh whereby the judgment and order of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh dated 1.8.2006 was set aside. Vide the said judgment of the learned Magistrate, accused/respondent Ganesh Ram was found guilty for the offence of Section 60(1 )(a) of Excise Act and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. nay Rs.5,000/- fine. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo six months' imprisonment. Accused/respondent Ganesh Ram, after the judgment of conviction recorded by the Magistrate against him, deposited a fine of Rs.5,000/- in the court on 8.8.2006 and preferred the appeal which was numbered and titled as Criminal Appeal No.9/2006, Ganesh Ram Vs. State. The learned Sessions Judge having gone through the evidence on record, passed the judgment of acquittal, whereagainst the State has filed this appeal.

2. The facts are that on 2.10.2005 at about 6 PM, Excise Inspector D.S. Rawat accompanied by his staff including Mohan Chand Kothari Head Excise Constable and Sri Lal Singh Rana, Sri Anand Snigh Dosad both excise constables were present in order to check the illegal importing of the contraband liquor within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali Pithoragarh. He got information that the illegal liquor was being transported from a place 'That' towards Pithoragarh town in a Mahindra Max Jeep and the same has to be sold in the town. That informer also disclosed the selling of the contraband liquor, six cases (72 bottles) to one person Gajendra Ram who resides in a rented accommodation near Maharshi Vidya Mandir at roadside place 'Jajar Deval'. Believing this information, the Excise Inspector Sri Rawat waited for the arrival of the said Jeep. Soon thereafter, Mahindra Max Jeep No. CH-02-1325 became visible coming towards Pithoragarh. The Jeep was stopped near Salmora Petrol Pump by the Checking Party and found two black coloured painted iron tin boxes and one bag therein. The jeep was occupied by the driver Keshav Ram and beside him in front seat, Ganesh Ram-respondent was sitting in the army uniform. On being asked, the respondent disclosed that he himself is the owner of the said Jeep. Excise Inspector introduced himself and asked the respondent to show the tin boxes and the bag kept in the jeep. Respondent Ganesh Ram, asserting himself to be an army personnel, showed the awesome demeanour and hampered to obey the command of the checking staff. Sri Rawat pressed the respondent to follow the directions, and then latter opened the lock of the boxes and bag. It was found that two boxes were having five cases each of English Liquor (60+60=120 bottles) and the bag was having 10 Bottles of Whisky; in total, 130 Bottles of liquor manufactured from Patiala Distillery were recovered from the accused/respondent wherefore he could not show any authorized paper to transport them to hills. Respondent Ganesh Ram also disclosed that a day before, he had sold six cases (72 bottles) of English Wine to Sri Gajendra Ram, who is home guard Commandant and lives at 'Jajar Deval' on a rented accommodation. Respondent Ganesh Ram was arrested at the spot for the offence of Section 72 Excise Act and the entire liquor along with the said Jeep and its papers were taken into custody by Sri D.S. Rawat. Later on, it was disclosed that the said Jeep was owned by the wife of Ganesh Ram, named Smt. Munni Devi and was purchased from Chandigarh. Respondent Ganesh Ram, residing along with his family at Chandigarh, was an army personnel. The recovered contraband liquor was put to test with the help of Litmus paper and thus, affirmed to be the foreign liquor. Recovery memo was prepared at the spot and was signed by both the accused persons along with the checking staff constables and Sri D.S. Rawat, Excise Inspector. This recovery memo is Ex.Ka 2.

3. Before raiding the accused persons, Sri D.S. Rawat prepar
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top