The court upheld the conviction for transporting foreign liquor with a forged registration plate while recalibrating the fine based on the applicable excise policy.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in these revisions is made to the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 07.09.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 571 of 2018, State v. Deewan Singh and another, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Almora (“the case”). By it, the revisionists, though have been acquitted under Sections 420, 468 IPC, but have been convicted under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (“the Act) and Sections 465, 471 IPC and sentenced as follows:-

(a) Under Section 60 of the Act – simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 5,71,536/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for a period of three months.

(b) Under Section 465 IPC - simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for a period of one month.

(c) Under Section 471 IPC - simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for a period of one month.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 23.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2022, Dhyan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, and Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022, Deewan Singh Kiraula v. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Almora. By it, though the learned appellate court upheld the conviction as recorded in the case, but reduced the sentence from six months to three months.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are as follows.

4. On 18.03.2018, PW 1 SI Santosh Kumar Devrani and PW 2 SI Brijbhushan Gururani along with police personnels were on patrolling duty. They intercepted a vehicle bearing number plate UK 04 S 8426 (“the vehicle”) and wanted to check its boot. But, the occupants were reluctant to get the vehicle searched. When the police party insisted for search and opened the boot, total 576 bottles of foreign liquor were recovered. The revisionist Deewan Singh Kiraula was the driver of the vehicle, whereas the revisionist Dhyan Singh was a co-passenger in it. According to the recovery memo, both of them had revealed at the time of search that they were bringing liquor from Haryana and would sell it in the State of Uttarakhand at high price and share the benefits. A recovery memo, Ex. A-1 was prepared at the spot. Both the revisionists were arrested. The revisionists did not produce any document pertaining to the vehicle, therefore, the vehicle was also challaned under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Subsequently, it was revealed that, in fact, the revisionists had used a forged number plate of the vehicle. Vehicle No. UK 04 S 8426 was registered as a Scooty in the name of PW 4 Pan Dev Kholia. PW 3 Smt. Kalpana Bhandari, the officer of the Traffic Department has proved the registration details of the vehicle bearing registration No. UK 04 S 8426. At the time of recovery, specimen of the liquor was taken. Specimen seal was prepared. It was sent for chemical examination, which was done by PW 5 Tara Chandra Purohit. He submitted his report Ex. A-6 and concluded that the recovered articles were foreign liquor. During investigation, the registration number plate of the vehicle was also taken into custody and a recovery memo was prepared. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted, which is the basis of the case.

5. On 28.08.2018, the charges under Sections 420, 468 IPC and Section 60 of the Act were framed against the revisionists. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW 1 SI Santosh Kumar Devrani, PW 2 SI Brijbhushan Gururani, PW 3 Smt. Kalpana Bhandari, PWR 4 Pan Dev Kholia, PW 5 Excise Inspector Tara Chandra Purohit and PW 6 SI Naveen Chandra Joshi.

7. After prosecution evidence, the revisionists were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Crimin