AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2025.08.28 Criminal Revision No. 891 of 2016

14:43:38 +0530 Judgment Reserved on : 01.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on :28.08.2025 Latkhor Sori S/o Mangaluram Sori, aged about 52 years, R/o Village Kungera, Police Station Sihava, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Sihava, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Gunja Taram, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawa l

CAV Judgment

1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.79/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (C.G.), whereby judgment dated 16.10.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.38/2014, convicting the applicant under Section 34(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month, has been affirmed.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.02.2014 at about 12:30 PM, during patrolling, the police of Police Station – Sihava stopped the applicant and searched his bag which is made of compost sacks and upon search, the police seized 20 quarters of country made plain liquor filled in 180 ml bottle from the possession of the applicant. The same was seized in presence of the witnesses i.e. Radhelal (PW-02) and Sanju Kumar (PW-03) at about 12:45 O’Clock. Thereafter, the police registered the offence punishable under Section 34(1) of the C.G. Excise Act against the applicant.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 34(1) of the C.G. Excise Act was filed before the Court of JMFC, Nagri, District - Dhamtari. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Section 34 (1)(a) and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 15.09.2016 has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. She further submits that the FIR (Ex.P-09) was lodged on 11.01.2014 at about 13:35 O’Clock in which Crime No. 02/2014 is mentioned, however, the time at which the seizure memo (Ex.P-03) was prepared i.e. at 12:45 O’Clock also contained Crime No.02/2014, which shows that before lodging of the FIR, Crime Number has already been mentioned in the seizure memo. This apart, the prosecution has failed to explain as to how the Crime No.02/2014 has been mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex.P-3) before lodging of the FIR (Ex.P-9).

It is also submitted that the seizure memo does not bear any sample seal in its prescribed column i.e. Column No.13. The witnesses to the seizure memo, namely, Radhelal (PW-02) and Sanju Kumar (PW-02) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, it is contended that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the seized property was kept in safe custody and no Malkhana register has also been produced to show that the seized property was kept in Malkhana in safe custody. Further, the articles were seized on 11.01.2014 whereas examination report shows that the seized articles were sent for examination o