The court emphasizes the importance of adequate evidence and proper procedure in maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

10 08-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on suspension of sentence and bail prayer of the appellant.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction dated

21.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Exclusive Prohibition and Excise Court ) cum District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with G.R. No. 930 of 2022 arising out of Vaishali P.S. Case No. 347 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 and he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

3. As per prosecution case, 681.840 litre foreign liquor was recovered from the room which was situated in the west side of the house of appellant and he was apprehended on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prior to conviction, the appellant has remained in custody from 10.09.2021 to 10.05.2022 and after conviction, the appellant is in custody since 21.12.2024. He further submits that appellant has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for five years out of which the total period of custody undergone by him is near about two years and the appeal is not likely to be taken up in near future. He further submits that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The very crux of the case is based on the seizure list witness but PW – 2 has stated in para 8 of his cross-examination that he put his signature on seizure list at thana on the next date. PW – 1, who is seizure list witness, has stated in para 5 of his cross- examination that the alleged recovery was made from courtyard but other witness (PW – 3), who is informant of the present case, has stated that said alleged recovery was made from room of the appellant. On the point of recovery, the divergent statements were recorded during the course of adducing evidence before the court. PW-3, who is the informant of the case, has stated that there are so many people gathered at the place of occurrence and he has stated that he has not been searched by anyone and the police who were present during raid, were also not searched by anyone. The very statement of PW-3 is also not in accordance with the statutory provisions which indicates that for the purpose of search and seizure, some procedure are to be followed but the same has not been followed which also put question mark on the conduct of the very officials. Other witnesses, Investigating Officer (PW-5) who has not made proper investigation regarding khata and khesra from where the alleged recovery was made. In this way, the statement of all prosecution witnesses are quite contradictory. It has been submitted that though there are several persons present at the place of occurrence as admitted by PW - 3 (informant) but how the independent witnesses has not been made as witnesses, the said question has not been answered during the course of investigation. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prima facie case is made out and appellant deserves the suspension of sentence. Appellant bears no criminal antecedent.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that PW – 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have supported and corroborated the story of prosecution and there is huge recovery of alleged illicit liquor from the house of the appellant. There is no