JUDGMENT :

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.629/2025 registered at Police Station - Chourai, Distt. Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. Applicant is in detention since 23.07.2025.

2. As per the prosecution story, on receiving information from the informant Police made a search and recovered 279 bulk liter country made liquor from possession of present applicant. Therefore, the offence has been registered against the present applicant under the aforesaid section.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 23.07.2025. It is submitted that offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act is not made out. It is also submitted that as per Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, two conditions are mandatory (i) accused must have been convicted for an offence under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 and (ii) from applicant more than 50 bulk liter illicit liquor has been seized. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act will not made out. There is no criminal antecedents of applicant. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pavan Gour vs. State of M.P. passed on 23.06.2023 in MCRC. No.23717/2023 in which learned Coordinate Bench has held that for offence making out under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a)(b) and thereafter in subsequent offence, seizure of liquor exceeding 50 bulk liter is necessary. The relevant portion of said decision as reproduced as under:-

"4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Section 34(1)(a)(b) and Section 34 (2) of the MP Excise Act, 1915 are quoted as under:-

"34 Penalty for unlawful manufacture, transport, possession, sale etc. — (i) Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act, or of any rule, notification or order made or issued thereunder, or of any condition of a licence, permit or pass granted under this Act,—

(a) manufactures, transports, imports, exports. collects or possesses any intoxicant;

(b) save in the cases provided for in Section 38, sell any intoxicant."

“Section 34(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (1), if a person is convicted for an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub -section (1) and the quantity of the intoxicant being liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of the offence exceeds fifty bulk litre, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees but may extend to one lac rupees:

Provided that when any person is convicted under this section for an offence for second or subsequent time, he shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but may extend to two lac rupees.”

6. Word used in Section 34(2) of the Act is ‘and’ and not ‘or’ on basis of which counsel appearing for applicant has argued that there has to be both ingredients of Section 34(2) i.e. quantity of liquor exceeding fifty bulk litres and accused is convicted of an offence covered under Clauses-(a) and (b) of Section 34(1) only then offence under Section 34(2) will be made out.

7. Justice G.P. Singh in Principles of Statutory Interpretation has mentioned that word ‘or’ is disjunctive and word ‘and’ is normally conjunctive but at times they are read vice versa to give effect to manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the context. Now it is to be looked into Section to find out the intent of the Legislature w