ORDER

1. This order disposes of criminal revision filed by the applicant Jaisingh s/o Dheeraj Rajput under sections 397 r/w 401 of CrPC, which has been preferred against the order of First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua pronounced on 13.2.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 172/2015, whereby order of conviction and sentence pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua on 29.9.2015 in Criminal Case No.1496/2015 convicting the applicant under sections 34(1)(a) read with 34(2) of the M. P. Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional 3 months SI has been affirmed, thereby dismissing the appeal.

2. The prosecution case in short was that on 21.9.2012, pursuant to receipt of secret information, one Maruti Suzuki Car bearing registration No. MP09 A 1644 was intercepted by the officers of the Excise Department and two persons namely, applicant Jaisingh and one another co-accused Sonu was found sitting in the car and on searching the car, 207.36 bulk litres of liquor was recovered from the car. The case was registered and after investigation, which comprised analysis of seized liquor and collecting other pieces of evidence, charge-sheet was filed under sections 34(1)(a) read with 34(2) of the M. P. Excise Act.

3. Learned trial Court framed charges under sections 34(1)(a) read with 34(2) of the M. P. Excise Act against the applicant and two other co-accused persons.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses in all namely, Suresh (PW1), Pappu (PW2) both independent witnesses, R. S. Sikarwar, Excise Sub-Inspector (PW3), K.C. Roiwar, Excise Sub-Inspector (PW4), shwarlal, Excise Constable (PW5).

5. Learned trial Court convicted the applicant Jaisingh while two other co-accused persons were acquitted. The applicant preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence and the Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence.

6. In the criminal revision, it has been stated that independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the statements of witnesses are self-contradictory. That applicant was a poor agriculturist and first offender and that each and every bottle of liquor seized was not subjected to analysis and therefore, it cannot be stated that liquor seized was 207.36 bulk litres. There were 22 boxes each carrying 48 quarters of Liberty Tango Jin and 2 boxes each containing 48 quarters of Bagpiper Whiskey.

7. The question before this Court is whether the conclusion regarding conviction and quantum of sentence imposed against applicant Jaisingh is liable to be set aside and the applicant deserves to be acquitted or not.

8. Submissions were made and record of the trial Court was perused.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant in his submission has not challenged the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below regarding interception of the car bearing registration No. MP09 A 1644. He has also not challenged that the applicant Jaisingh was found sitting in the car. He has further not challenged that some of the boxes recovered from the car were allegedly containing liquor. However, learned counsel for the applicant has made submissions that each and every bottle contained in boxes seized from the car was not subjected to analysis so as to confirm that there was liquor in each and every bottle.

10. In support of his submission, he has cited two judgements of the M. P. High Court in the case of Sunil Tiwari v. State of MP reported in 2009(1) MPWN 60 and Babulal S/o Premsingh v. State of MP reported in 2006(1) JLJ 405 = 2006(1) MPLJ 317, both being Single Bench judgements. In the case of Sunil Tiwari (supra), it was found that out of 288 quarters of alcohol seized, only 3 were tested. Referring to the apex Court judgement pronounced in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa, Secretariat Panji, Goa reported in 1993 CRLJ 1485, it was held that each of the bottle was