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

2025 Supreme(MP) 949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J.
Pramod Thakur - Applicant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC No. 37263 of 2025
Decided On : 16-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Shri Pramod Singh Tomar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri C.M. Tiwari, Government Advocate

The court questioned if Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act necessitates a prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a) or (b) alongside the seizure of over 50 bulk liters of liquor, referring the conflict in interpretation to a larger bench.

Headnote:(A) M.P. Excise Act - Sections 34(1), 34(2) and 59-A - Recovery of illicit liquor - Quantum of punishment - Interpretation of Section 34(2) regarding whether prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a) or (b) is a mandatory condition in addition to the seizure of more than fifty bulk liters of liquor for attracting enhanced penalty - Analysis of whether the word 'and' used in the section creates conjunctive requirements for the offense to be made out. (Paras 3, 6, 11)

(B) M.P. Excise Act - Section 59-A - Bail restrictions - Provisions relating to the seizure of liquor exceeding fifty bulk liters do not explicitly stipulate prior conviction as a prerequisite for treating the offense as non-bailable or for imposing strict bail conditions. (Paras 6, 11)

(C) Statutory Interpretation - Aggravated Offense - Section 34(2) is viewed as a supplementary or extended form of Section 34(1), functioning as an aggravated version of the offense based on the quantity of the intoxicant. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was detained following the recovery of 279 bulk liters of country-made liquor. A case was registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act. The applicant sought regular bail, contending that the offense under Section 34(2) cannot be established without a prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a) or (b) and the seizure of more than fifty bulk liters of liquor, relying on a precedent by a coordinate bench.

Findings of Court:
The court observed a conflict between the legal proposition of a coordinate bench and the statutory language of the Act. It noted that the legislative intent behind the Amendment Act of 2000 was to provide deterrent punishments based on quantity. The court found that Section 34(2) uses the phrase "if a person is convicted" rather than "was convicted," and that the bail restrictions under Section 59-A are triggered by the quantity of liquor seized rather than prior convictions.

Issues: Whether for constituting an offense under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, a prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a) or (b) is an essential requirement in addition to the recovery of more than fifty bulk liters of illicit liquor, or whether the seizure of such quantity alone is sufficient to attract the provision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation requiring prior conviction for the application of Section 34(2) appears contrary to statutory law. It reasoned that Section 34(2) is an aggravated form of Section 34(1) based on quantity, and the related bail provisions in Section 59-A do not mandate prior convictions, implying the quantity itself is the primary trigger.

Result: Matter referred to a Division Bench/Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement; interim bail granted to the applicant.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences involving property
      • illicit liquor offences
        • unlawful manufacture, transport, possession, sale of intoxicant (Para 6, 3, 2)
    • sentencing and punishment
      • enhanced punishment for quantity exceeding fifty bulk litres (Para 9, 10, 6)
  • practice and procedure
    • bail
      • regular bail application (Para 1)
      • interim bail pending reference to larger bench (Para 13, 14)
    • interpretation of statutes
      • statutory construction — conjunctive 'and' vs disjunctive 'or' (Para 11, 3)
    • reference to larger bench
      • substantial question of law requiring authoritative pronouncement (Para 12, 15)
    • non-bailable offences
      • certain offences under m.p. excise act declared non-bailable (Para 6)
  • constitutional law
    • fundamental rights
      • right to liberty (article 21) — limitations for grave offences (Para 10)

Table of Contents

1. Bail application under Section 483 BNSS for offence under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act — recovery of 279 bulk liter country made liquor. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Dispute over whether Section 34(2) requires prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a)(b) in addition to seizure exceeding 50 bulk liters. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Applicant granted interim bail till disposal of petition; matter referred to Division Bench/Larger Bench on question of law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )

4. Whether prior conviction under Section 34(1)(a)(b) is essential for an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act?

The court referred the question to a larger bench, noting that Section 34(2) is an aggravated form of Section 34(1) and the word 'is' does not mandate prior conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

5. What is the role of the phrase 'subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)' in Section 34(1) of the M.P. Excise Act?

This phrase indicates that Section 34(2) is supplementary or an extended form of Section 34(1), not an independent offence, providing enhanced punishment based on quantity. (Para 11 , 9 )

6. What is the interpretation of Section 59-A(ii) of the M.P. Excise Act regarding bail for offences under Section 34(1)(a)(b) with recovery exceeding 50 bulk liters?

The section requires the quantity of liquor to exceed 50 bulk liters for its application; it does not require a prior conviction for the offence. (Para 11 , 6 , 10 )

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top