Partly allowed

Shiv Lal Kenwat and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2022CRR/305/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2011 allowed the revision partly. While maintaining the conviction and fine, it reduced the applicants' jail sentence to the period already undergone, noting irregularities in proving liquor quantity and non-production of seized liquor before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed in part; conviction and fine maintained; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Shiv Lal Kenwat and Anr. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2011

¶5

Shiv Lal Kenwat S/o Vishal Kenwat, 32 years,

¶6

Laxman Kanwar S/o Baisakhu Kanwar, 55 years,

¶7

Both R/o Village Kothitola, P.S. - Baghnadi, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

---- Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant/State

¶11

For Applicant	: Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State	: Shri Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶13

14.09.2022

¶14

The applicants have filed the instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2011 whereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2011 recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case. No. 630/2009 wherein each of the applicants have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 34 (1) (A) & 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one-one year & fine of Rs.25,000/- - Rs.25,000/-, in default further R.I. for six-six months.

¶15

Case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2009 at about 07:00 pm, complainant Shanti Bai, President of Gouri Ma Mahila Samooh of Village Sitagota, alongwith other members of group intercepted the present the applicants who were transporting liquor on a motorcycle and seized a bag containing 35 bulk liters of country made liquor. The group members prepared panchnama and the applicants were detained in the house of Kotwar and on the very next day applicants were taken to the police station,

¶16

¶17

where the F.I.R. was lodged, liquor was seized and the applicants were arrested.

¶18

After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 34 (1) (A) and 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act and Sections 3/181, 146/196, 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act. The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents to bring home the offence committed by applicants. Statements of the applicants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were also recorded by the learned trial Court, The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants for the offence under aforementioned sections.

¶19

The applicants have preferred the instant criminal revision against the judgment dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the motorcycle of the applicants was stopped by the women's self help group and one bag was seized, on the next day the present applicants were produced before the police station where F.I.R. was lodged. In written complainant Ex.-P/1 and F.I.R. Ex.-P/2, the quantity of liquor is of 35 bottles of country made liquor, whereas in examination report, it is mentioned as 27 bulk liters of country made liquor. He further submits that the witnesses have not stated the quantity of the liquor seized from the possession of the applicants in their evidence. He also submits that the applicant No. 1 has remained in jail for a period of 06 months and 25 days, whereas applicant No.2 has remained in jail for a period of 04 months and 05 days and the trial Court has imposed the maximum sentence to the applicants of 01 year each.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicants, motorcycle was

¶22

¶23

also seized, liquor was examined by Excise Sub-Inspector, the report was submitted before the trial Court vide Ex.-P/5 and two courts below have recorded concurrent finding which does not require for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the records.

¶25

From records, it appears that liquor was seized by the members of women's self help group, written report Ex.-P/1 was submitted on the next day. F.I.R. was lodged by Shanti Bai (PW-1) vide Ex.-P/2. Though PW-1 has admitted her signature over written complaint, F.I.R. and panchnama Ex.-P/3, but she has not stated the quantity of liquor in her evidence. PW-2 Amrotin Bai has admitted her signature over Ex.-P/1, but, in cross-examination, she admitted that they did not open the container in which liquor was kept and they were not aware what was being transported by the present applicants and PW-4 Girja Bai has stated in same manner in her examination.

¶26

PW-5 Janardan Singh, Excise Sub-Inspector, has stated that on the basis of colour, smell, taste and change of colour of litmus paper, he has given the report that seized article was liquor and it was chemically not examined. PW7 D. Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector, has completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

¶27

10.It is admitted fact that the present applicants were transporting something in their motorcycle, but the same was liquor, has not been proved. Further, according to provisions of Section 57-A of the Excise Act, it appears from the entire order-sheet that the seized liquor was not produced before the Magistrate during trial. Looking to these facts and the fact that the applicants No. 1 has remained in jail for a period of 06 months and 25 days and applicant No.2 has remained in jail for a period of 04 months and 05 days and further the trial Court has imposed the maximum sentence to the applicants of 01 year each, and presently they are on bail, this Court is of

¶28

¶29

the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them while maintaining the fine sentence imposed by the trial Court.

¶30

In the result, the revision is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of applicants under Sections 34 (1) (A) and 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed upon the applicants with default stipulation by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

vatti

Shiv Lal Kenwat and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Lal Kenwat and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fulmati Vs Injoriya Bai

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raja @ Shakti Mohammad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Panda Vs Smt. Kusum Panda