In an acquittal appeal, the appellant sought to challenge a 2014 acquittal for illicit possession of country-made liquor, arguing the trial court erred by closing evidence without prosecution witnesses. The High Court dismissed the appeal due to the excessive delay in filing.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No.164 of 2012
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant/State : Shri HS Ahuluwalia, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent : Notice unserved.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
08.9.2023
1 . This acquittal appeal has been preferred against judgment of acquittal rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.160/2009, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 34(1)( d ) of the Excise Act.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that while searching, police of Police Station Kotraroad seized 20 pav country made liquor from the illicit possession of the respondent/accused. Based on the above facts, present crime was registered and the case was filed by the Police in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3. The case was fixed for evidence of the prosecution, but despite granting various opportunities to the prosecution, it utterly failed to examine any of its witnesses, hence, learned trial Court closed the opportunity of evidence of the prosecution and due to lack of evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused from the
2
offence under Section 34(1)( d ) of the Excise Act. Hence, instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has closed the opportunity of adducing evidence of prosecution and without any evidence, impugned judgment has been passed. Hence, it is prayed that opportunity to adduce evidence may be provided and case may be remanded to the trial Court with aforesaid direction.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused impugned order and the material available on record.
6. Perusal of the record would show that it is a case of illicit possession of 20 pav country made liquor, that too in the year 2009. So much time has been lapsed. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the observation made by learned trial Court that despite providing opportunity, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.
Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE
Bini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal should be set aside and the case remanded after 14 years due to the prosecution's failure to adduce evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh
Mahesh Bhagat
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
