Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 363
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT, J
Sahil Kewat – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 18815/2024
Sheersh Agrawal,Advocate General
An offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act requires both a previous conviction under Section 34(1) and a quantity of liquor exceeding 50 liters, which were not present in this case.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - M.P. Excise Act, 1915 - Section 34(2) - Petition for quashing proceedings - Offence under Section 34(2) not made out due to absence of previous conviction under Section 34(1) and insufficient quantity of liquor involved - Court relied on prior order in M.Cr.C. No. 23717/2023. (Paras 2, 5)
(B) Legal Requirements - For an offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, both previous conviction under Section 34(1) and quantity of liquor exceeding 50 liters must be established. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, arguing that there was no previous conviction under Section 34(1) and the quantity of liquor involved was insufficient. The court referenced a prior ruling that supported this argument.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of a previous conviction under Section 34(1) and the insufficient quantity of liquor meant that the offence under Section 34(2) could not be sustained, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conditions for establishing an offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act were met, specifically regarding previous convictions and quantity of liquor involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that both conditions must be satisfied for an offence under Section 34(2) to be made out, and since neither was met in this case, the proceedings were quashed.
Result: Petition disposed of.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of proceedings before the trial Court.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 is not made out against the petitioner. He relied on order dated 23.06.2023, passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 23717/2023, Pavan Gour vs The State of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that for making out of case under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, there has to be previous conviction of petitioner under Section 34(1) of M.P. Excise Act and amount of liquor involved in committing offence must be above 50 liters.
Both the twin conditions are to be satisfied. In this case, there is no previous conviction of petitioner under Section 34(1) of M.P. Excise Act. It is submitted that as per order dated 23.06.2023, no offence under Section 34(2) will be made out against the petitioner. On basis of same, counsel appearing for petitioner made a prayer for quashing of offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
3. Government Advocate appearing for respondent/State opposed the said prayer. However, he is unable to point out any larger bench judgment on the proposition of law.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Considering the fact that there is no previous conviction of petitioner under Section 34(1) of M.P. Excise Act and also taking into consideration order dated 23.06.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 23717/2023, Pavan Gour vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act against the petitioner is quashed. Trial Court is at liberty to frame charge under any other section, which may be made out against petitioner.
6. With aforesaid order, petition is disposed off.
