Partly allowed

Sewa Ram v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2012CRR/192/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that remanding the applicant to jail was unnecessary as he had already undergone a significant portion of the potential sentence. Conviction maintained under Section 34(a) of the Excise Act, 1915, but imprisonment reduced to days already served.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed; conviction maintained under Section 34(a) of the Excise Act, 1915, but applicant sentenced only for the period already undergone.

Sewa Ram Vs State of C.G. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE H IGH COURT OF CI%¥ATISGARH JUDICATURE^AT W

¶2

BILASPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION No. /<‘f^Q/[zooz APPLICANT :— Sewaram S/o GhaSiya Yadav , aedg 40 (In jail) years, R/o Village Ghent P.$. Goberanawapara Tahsil & District V Raipur ( C.G.) Ver SuS '- [ ’oxwAPpLICAM m :— Skate of chhatisgaxh. CRIMImL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTIQI 401 Cr.P.C. ‘ ‘ -—o——.,__

¶4

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Revision No.192 of 2002

APPLICANT: (In jan)

Sewaram

Versus

NON-APPLICANT: State of Chhattisgarh

¶11

I{Criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C}

¶12

Present:

¶13

;^{Mr.AtulPandey,counselfortheapplicant.} i Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶14

i@“ Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

ORDER

£ e

(7-9-2012)

By this revision, the appiicant has chalienged legality and propriety of the» i judgment^{dated5-4-2002} passed^{bytheSpecialJudgeundertheNDPSAct} and Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.211/2000, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22—9-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.241/98, whereby and whereunder the trial Court after holding the applicatn guilty for possession of i llicit liqur,o convicted the applicant under Section 34 (a) of the Excise Act, 1915 and sentceden him to undergo Rl for one month & pay fine of Rs.200/—, in default additional SI for ten days.

¶19

l have heard learned counsel fo r th e parties, perused^the judgments^and records of both the Courts below.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was in custody from 5-4-2002 after dismissal of appeal at least till 17-42002, the date of order of his release o n bail i.e. for 12 days and has paid fine of Rs.200/—. Alleged offence has been committed on 12-3-98. In the year 1998, minimum sentence under Section 34 of the Excise Act, 1915 was Rs.200/— ' and no minimum sentence of imprisonment has been provided. The applicant was found in possession of 68 quarters of liquor. He is facing prosecution since last 14 years. Therefore, in absence of any minimum sentence of imprisonment, imprisonment for the period already udergonen by the appiicant be considered as sufficient sentence.

¶21

On the ohert hand, lerneda State counsel opposes the revision.

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

Cr.R.No.192/2002

¶24

As per un-amended provision of Section 34 of the Excise Act, 1915, in the year^{1998,minimumsentencewasRs.200/—andtherewasnosentenceof} imprisonment. Section 34 of the Excise Act (un-amended) reads thus, “34. Penalty for illegal import, etc..—Whoever in

¶25

contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or given thereunder, or of any licence, permit^or pass granted^{underthisAct,-} (a)imports,^{eXports,transports,} manufactures, collects or

¶26

possesses^{anyintoxicant;or}

¶27

(b)^save in the cases provided for in section 38, sells any intoxicant; or

¶28

(c)^{cultivatesanyhemp} piant;^or

¶29

(d)^{tapsordrawtarifromanytari} producing^tree'or (e)^{constructsorworksanydistilleryorbrewery;'or} (f) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the

¶30

~ purpose^{ofmanufacturinganyintoxicantotherthantari;} or

¶31

(g)^{removesanyintoxicantfromanydistillery,} brewery or warehouse licensed, established or continued under this Act; or

¶32

(h)^{bottlesanyliquor;} shall be, punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to, one year and fine which shall not be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend to two thousand rupees: Provided that when any person is convicted under this section of any offence for a second or subsequent time, he shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a termtwhich shall not be less than one month but which may extend to twenty-four months and with fine which shaii not be less than three hundred rupees but which may extend to three thousand rupees”;

¶33

Considering submission of counsel for the applicant, act attributed to the applicant and pendency of prosecuonti against the applicant, again sending the applicant to jail for serving remaining sentence of about 18 days will not serve any purpose.

¶34

Soma

¶35

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 34 (a) of the Excise Act, 1915, the applicant is sentenced to Rl for the perio d already undergone by him i.e. for about 12 days and fine of,Rs.200/-, which he had already paid

¶36

,f/f 8d]T.P.^Sharma w/

Sewa Ram v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewa Ram v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Bihari Gupta Vs the State of C.G

M.P.State Ware Housing Corp. and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Khor Bahra Vs State of C.G.

Panch Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Lal Vs State of C.G.