The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a criminal revision regarding a conviction for possession of excisable liquor. The court upheld the conviction on record but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in jail.
Partially allowed; convictions maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
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
CRR No. 62 of 2008
---- Applicant Versus
| ---- Respondent |
|---|
| For Applicant | : Shri N.S. Dhurandhar and Shri |
|---|---|
| Pramod Ramteke, Adv. | |
| For Respondent/State | : Shri Wasim Miyan, PL |
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
22.07.2019
Inspector raided the house of the applicant and on being searched he found 222 quarters of (Pawwa) of country made liquor, which was kept beneath the floor and the same was seized from the possession of the applicant. After filing of charge-sheet, charges were framed against the accused/applicant under Section 34(1) (a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
examination, from which it appears that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. The learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution has produced the evidence against the applicant only on the report submitted by the Excise Sub Inspector and thus Excise Sub Inspector has submitted this report only on the basis of smelling and testing of liquid and only on the basis of testing, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is a poor lady, therefore, he is not pressing this revision as far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2004 and thereby more than 15 years have rolled by since then, she is aged about 67 years, the applicant has already remained in jail for about more than three months and no useful purpose would be served in again sending her to jail. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on her may be reduced to the period already undergone by her.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
yasmin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 34(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act requires interference.
Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant is excessive in view of the time elapsed and her period already undergone.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumrit Bai
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
