The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for transporting 1152 quarters of foreign liquor under the Excise Act, upholding the lower courts' findings and affirming the impugned judgment.
Revision dismissed; impugned judgment affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on 26.09.2018
Order pronounced on 10.12.2018
CRR No. 486 of 2005
Balkrishna Rao son of Shyam Rao Maratha, aged about 41 years, R/o Forest Colony, Fafadih, PS Ganj, Raipur, District Raipur, CG --- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh --- Respondent - For Applicant Smt. Kiran Jain, Advocate. - For Respondent Shri Majid Ali, GA
Hon'ble Smt. Vimla Singh Kapoor, J.
CAV Order
By this revision petition the applicant has assailed the judgment dated 30.08.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 178/2005 affirming the judgment dated 21.06.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 397/2005 convicting the accused/applicant under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 09 months.
could not produce even the licence to drive the said vehicle and was transporting the liquor without licence. On effecting the seizure in presence of the witnesses, the liquor was sent for chemical examination and ultimately it was found to be foreign liquor (whiskey). After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police and thus criminal law was set in motion.
the case of the prosecution stating that the liquor was found in the house of the accused/applicant and the police had informed them regarding its seizure having been made. Prosecution has thus succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt and being so the findings recorded by both the Courts below convicting the accused/applicant under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Excise Act being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, do not call for any interference by this Court. Even the sentence awarded by the Courts below appears to be just and proper looking to the quantity of the intoxicant seized from the possession of the accused/applicant which comes to 1152 quarters.
Sd/-
(Vimla Singh Kapoor) Judge
Jyotishi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition assailing the conviction under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Excise Act requires interference.
Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below convicting the appellant are based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Whether the sentence awarded by the Courts below is just and proper.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balkrishna Rao
State of Chhattisgarh
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
