1. This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2016 passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.15/2016 affirming the judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the learned Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.391/2015, whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 34 (2) of Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2-2 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- - 25000/-, with default stipulations.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 12.06.2015 at about 22:00 O’clock Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh was informed by the informer that accused are illegally transporting the liquor for selling in one swaraj mazada vehicle at Atariya road. On the basis of said information Station In-charge Vinod Mandavi and his companion Staff reached at incident place at Atariya Road and where from the accused persons seized one Swaraj Mazda Vehicle bearing no.C.G.04-JB-2035 with country made plain liquor total 35 cartoon in each cartoon 180 m.l. total 1750 quarter was loaded and its total value was Rs.87500/- and one Motor Cycle was also seized. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellants. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record by the judgment dated 26.04.2016 convicted and sentenced the applicants, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Subsequently, by the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2016 the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse and therefore, is liable to be set aside. He further submits that both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence of witnesses and material available on record. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there are also material omissions and contradictions, but the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not consider the above said aspects of the matter and have recorded a wrong finding. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parvat Singh and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in CRA No.374/2020, decided on 02.03.2020 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Punitram and another vs The State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRR No.77/2016, decided on 04.10.2023.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicants guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 34 (2) of the Excise Act against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and PW-2 Khemraj both are independent witnesses. They only admitted their signatures on notice (Ex-P1), seizure memo (Ex-P/2), arrest memo (Ex-P/3 to P/6) but they denied any proceeding before them. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but they denied all suggestions of prosecution and stated that they went to police station for some work and upon police saying they did their sig