Vinay @ Vikky Raghuvanshi vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Vinay @ Vikky Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2020 (Indore): against the judgment dated 6.1.2020 passed by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2019;
Decided on 6.1.2025

Advocates appeared:
Himanshu Thakur for applicant; Surendra Gupta,
Government Advocate for respondent Surendra Guptas/State.

Headnote:
(1) Excise Act, 1915 (M. P.) -- S. 34(2) -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 39/192, 146/196 and 3/181 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 484 -- seizure of country-made liquor -- case rests only upon testimonies of police witnesses -- defence of accused is that vehicle collided with police vehicle therefore this false case was framed with aid of only police officials -- held -- Courts below ought to appreciate evidence of police officials in backdrop of aforesaid defence of petitioner -- Court should look for independent corroboration to their testimony -- charge against accused punishable with minimum punishment -- hence, there is requirement of higher degree of proof which must inspire confidence with regard to authenticity of prosecution case -- all of the prosecution witnesses have not specifically supported fact that vehicle had counterfeit mark used by public servant -- such lacuna fatal not only for charges of counterfeit mark but also for the whole prosecution case -- no question suggested to independent witnesses with regard to seizure of counterfeit mark -- another material contradiction is with regard to type of vehicle -- there is no proof of fact that seized liquor was deposited in malkhana -- seizure memo is signed by seizure officer but no specimen seal affixed -- no name of company and other significant sign is placed by prosecution through which it can be assumed that seized material was liquor -- no report of Excise Officer with reference to authentication or confirmation of fact that seized contraband was liquor -- seizure not supported by any independent witness -- testimonies of police officials have material contradictions and omissions which go to root of case -- petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt. 1996 JLJ 377, 1998 (1) JLJ 236, 2006 (1) JLJ 405 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 317 and 2008 LawSuit (MP) 1267 relied on. (2015) 12 SCC 247, (2006) 12 SCC 321, (2003) 12 SCC 377 and Gaunter Edwin 1993 CrLJ 1485 (SC) followed. 2019 (3) JLJ 218 = 2019 LawSuit (MP) 260 distinguished.
[Paras 11 to 21, 26 & 27
(2) Witness -- police witness -- testimony of witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely because he happens to be a police official -- but Court should look for independent corroboration to his testimony. (2015) 12 SCC 247 followed. [Para 15
(3) Practice -- criminal trial -- case not supported by independent witnesses -- only relying upon police officials -- there should be concrete quality of evidence inspiring confidence to convict accused on basis of police statements. 2005(2) MPLJ 11 relied on. [Para 23
¼1½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼e-ç-½ && /kkjk 34¼2½ && eksVj ;ku vfèkfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 39@192] 146@196 rFkk 3@181 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 484 && ns'kh 'kjkc dk vfHkxzg.k && çdj.k dsoy iqfyl lkf{k;ksa ds ifjlk{; ij vkèkkfjr && vfHk;qä dh çfrj{kk ;g fd ;ku iqfyl ;ku ls Vdjk x;k blfy, ;g feF;k çdj.k dsoy iqfyl in/kkfj;ksa dh lgk;rk ls xढ+k x;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && fupys U;k;ky;ksa dks iqfyl in/kkfj;ksa ds lk{; dk ewY;kadu ;kph dh iwoksZä çfrj{kk dh i`"BHkwfe esa djuk pkfg, && U;k;ky; dks muds ifjlk{; dh Lora= laiqf"V [kkstuk pkfg, && vfHk;qä ds fo:) vkjksi U;wure naM ls naMuh; && vr%- mPprj Js.kh ds lcwr dh vko';drk gS ftlls vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dh çkekf.kdrk ds ckjs esa fo'okl mRiUu gks && lHkh vfHk;kstui{k lkf{k;ksa us fofufnZ"Vr% bl rF; dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gS fd ;ku ij yksd lsod }kjk mi;ksx fd;k tkus okyk dwV—r fpà Fkk && ,slh deh dwV—r fpà ds vkjksiksa ds fy, gh ugha] vfirq laiw.kZ vfHk;kstu i{kdFku ds fy, Hkh ?kkrd && dwV—r fpà ds vfHkxzg.k ds ckjs esa Lora= lk{khx.k dks dksbZ ç'u ugha lq>k;k x;k && ,d vU; rkfRod fojks/kkHkkl ;ku ds çdkj ds ckjs esa gS && bl rF; dk dksbZ lcwr ugha fd vfHkx`ghr efnjk eky[kkus esa tek dh xbZ && vfHkxzg.k vf/kdkjh us vfHkxzg.k Kkiu ij gLrk{kj fd, ijarq dksbZ uewuk eqgj ugha yxkbZ && vfHk;kstui{k }kjk fdlh daiuh dk uke ;k vU; egRoiw.kZ fpà ugha crk;k x;k ftlls /kkj.kk dh tk lds fd vfHkx`ghr lkexzh efnjk Fkh && bl rF; ds çek.ku ;k iqf"V ds ckjs esa vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh dk dksbZ çfrosnu ugha fd vfHkx`ghr fuf"k) inkFkZ efnjk Fkk && vfHkxzg.k fdlh Lora= lk{kh }kjk lefFkZr ugha && iqfyl in/kkfj;ksa ds ifjlk{; esa rkfRod fojks/kkHkkl vkSj yksi gSa tks çdj.k ds ewy rd tkrs gSa && ;kph lansg ds Qk;ns dk gdnkjA 1996 ts,yts 377] 1998 ¼1½ ts,yts 236] 2006¼1½ ts,yts 405 ¾ 2006 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 317 rFkk 2008 y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 1267 voyafcrA ¼2015½ 12 ,llhlh 247] ¼2006½ 12 ,llhlh 321] ¼2003½ 12 ,llhlh 377 rFkk 1993 lhvkj,yts 1485 ¼,llh½ vuqlfjrA 2019 ¼3½ ts,yts 218 ¾ 2019 y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 260 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 11 ls 21] 26 ,oa 27
¼2½ lk{kh && iqfyl lk{kh && lk{kh ds ifjlk{; ij ek= blfy, lansg ugha fd;k tk,xk ;k mls ek= blfy, R;ä ugha fd;k tk,xk fd og iqfyl in/kkjh gS && ijarq U;k;ky; dks mlds ifjlk{; dh Lora= laiq"V [kkstuk pkfg,A ¼2015½ 12 ,llhlh 247 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15
¼3½ çFkk && nkafMd fopkj.k && ekeyk Lora= lk{khx.k }kjk lefFkZr ugha && ek= iqfyl in/kkjhx.k ij voyafcr && iqfyl dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qä dks fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy, Bksl xq.koÙkk dk fo'oklksRiknd lk{; gksuk pkkfg,A 2005¼2½ ,eih,yts 11 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 23

ORDER

1. The criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being cresfallen by the judgment dated 6.1.2020 passed by learned IVXth Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 206/2019 affirming the judgment dated 30.7.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Indore wherein the petitioner has been convicted under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default stipulation 03 months R.I., sections 39/192, 146/196 and 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereupon referred to as "MV Act") alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.500/- & Rs.500/- and section 484 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undego 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively and default stipulations.

2. Succinctly stated brief facts of the case are that on 9.12.2010, ASI posted at M.G. Road, Police station has received a discret information from the informer that one Scorpio bearing Registration No.MP-09-MQ-0008 is loaded with illegal liquor and shall pass through Tilak Path Road. Acting upon the said information, the police team after following the due procedure of law, reached on the spot, they saw the Scorpio vehicle as informed by the informer, on being interrogation, the driver has named himself as Vinay @ Vickey and upon having searched, the police has recovered 48 boxes (containing 50-50 quarters each) each quarter containing 180ML total 430.200 bulk litres of countrymade liquor. At the time of searching, police found counterfeit mark used by public servant and also found vechile having no documents. Hence, the police registered the offence under section 34(2) of the Act, sections 39/192, 146/196 and 3/181 of M.V. Act and section 484 of IPC against the petitioner.

3. During investigation, contraband was seized by preparing seizure memo and recorded evidence on independent witnesses. Contraband was sent for FSL analysis. After following the due procedure of law and filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence section 34(2) of the Act, sections 39/192, 146/196 and 3/181 of M.V. Act and section 484 of IPC.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined total 06 witnesses namely Sanjay, Driver (PW-1), Santosh (PW-2), Subhash, Constable (PW-3), Jitnedrasingh, Constable (PW-4), Vinod Kumar, Head Constable (PW-5) and Ramesh Bourasi, Sub-Inspector (PW-6). No defence witness has been adduced by the petitioner in his defence.

5. An appeal was also filed before the learned appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge, having analized the facts, evidence available on record and after hearing rival submissions of other side, learned appellate Court affirmed the sentence given by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal against which this criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of learned appellate Court and trial Court and contended that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and non-application of judicial mind. The orders impugned, if allowed to stand, will cause great injustice and irreparable loss to the petitioner who is innocent. Therefore, the same doesn't deserve to be sustained. He has further contended that in this case both independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the findings of learned appellate Court as well as trial Court with regard to conviction of the petitioner only on the basis of police witnesses are not in consonance with law. No police witness of raiding party has stated that there was any logo of State Assembly on the vehicle whereas the petitioner has been convicted under section 484 of IPC which deals with "counterfieting a mark used by a public servant or using a counterfiet mark as genuine." Ramesh Boirashi, Seizure Officer has not identified