Dauram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2016 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 08.07.2016 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 8540 of 2015 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 34 (2) of C.G. Excise	RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs.
Act	50,000/-, in default of payment of
	fine additional RI for 6 months.

¶18

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.08.2015, during course of patrolling, Excise Circle received secret information from the informer that the applicant has kept some illicit liquor in his residential house and on the basis of said information, the Excise Sub InspectorSanjay Namdev along with witness rushed there and searched the home of the applicant and seized total 277.56 bulk liter liquor from his home. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act were registered against the applicant.

¶19

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District: Durg (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶20

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted & sentenced him as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal,

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.07.2016, dismissed the appeal of applicant upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶23

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that Section 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act prescribes the minimum punishment for 1 year and the fine sentence is Rs. 25,000/- but the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has sentenced the applicant for two years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under said section, which is also on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail from 22.08.2015 to 26.08.2016 i.e. for 1 year 5 days and is facing the lis since August 2015, i.e. for almost 10 years and he has no criminal antecedents, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him while reducing the fine sentence suitably.

¶24

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶25

7. Considering the statements of PW-6 Sanjay Namdev (Excise SubInspector) supported by PW-5 Hemant Kumar Mahant, PW-3 Churaman Sahu, PW-2 Tikam Singh Sahu and PW-1 Santram and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a

¶26

Page 4 of 4

¶27

correct finding of fact and I hereby affirm the said finding.

¶28

8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 1 year 5 days, he is facing the lis since 2015 i.e. for about 10 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Trial Court and maintained by Appellate Court is hereby reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. The default sentence as imposed thereunder shall remain intact.

¶30

10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶33

Saurabh

Dauram Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dauram Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal Chandel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tanka @ Mahaveer Nagvashi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Shah Vs Dwarika Prasad Shah

Mukesh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jairam Uraon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nimai Barai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh