Allowed

Vakila S/O Mungaram B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2018CRLR/1353/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside conviction of three petitioners sentenced under Rajasthan Excise Act for exhibiting illicit liquor due to non-production of recovered articles and FSL report not being put to accused, granting acquittal subject to bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Judgments and orders passed by Courts below quashed; petitioners acquitted and set at liberty; directed to furnish personal and surety bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Vakila S/O Mungaram B/C Gurjar Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1353/2018

¶3

Vakila S/o Mungaram B/c Gurjar, R/o Ghed Police Station Sadar, Dholpur. (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Dholpur).

¶4

Sikandar S/o Mungaram B/c Gurjar, R/o Ghed Police Station Sadar, Dholpur. (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Dholpur).

¶5

Siyaram S/o Panna B/c Dhimar, R/o Odela Police Station Dholpur. (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Dholpur).

¶6

----Petitioners Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain and Mr. Anil Kumar Upman For State : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

16/11/2018

¶13

Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment dated 22.11.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dholpur vide which petitioners have been convicted under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and against the order dated 06.12.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, Rajasthan vide which petitioners have been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each has been imposed on the petitioners, on non payment of fine petitioners were to further undergo two months simple

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLR-1353/2018]

¶16

imprisonment and against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2018 passed by Special Court SC/ST Act, Cases, Dholpur (Raj.), whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners was partly allowed. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction but altered the sentence from three years to one year.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that Courts below have committed serious error in convicting the petitioners. The Investigating Officer and Recovery Officer were not produced before the trial Court. It is also contended that the recovered articles were also not produced before the Court below to establish the fact of recovery.

¶18

It is also contended that the FSL report was produced after recording of the explanation of petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the FSL report was not put to the petitioners. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present criminal revision petition. His contention is that petitioners have criminal antecedents. They were caught with the illicit liquor. It is also contended that the witnesses who were in the raiding party have deposed against the petitioners and there is nothing on record to suggest that raiding party was having any enmity with the petitioners.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Non-production of the recovered articles and non examination of the Investigating Officer and Recovery Officer is a serious lapse on part of the prosecuting Agency, further not putting the FSL report to the accused petitioners and not obtaining their explanation on FSL report is further infirmity committed by the Courts below.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLR-1353/2018]

¶23

From perusal of the record, it is revealed that statements of accused were recorded on 12.06.2013. FSL report was submitted before the Court below on 27.03.2014. FSL. report was not put to the accused, hence they have been deprived of their right to explain the circumstances which were against them. Nonproduction of the recovered articles and non examination of the Investigating Officer and Recovery Officer is further serious lapse. Judgment and order of the Courts below, therefore, cannot be sustained.

¶24

In the result, revision filed by petitioners is allowed. Judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are quashed and set-aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the charges. They are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases or for any other purpose.

¶25

Petitioners are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioners on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

Amit/19

Vakila S/O Mungaram B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakila S/O Mungaram B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Kaptan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sweta Tripathi Vs Punit Dutta

Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Kanwadia Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhanwarlal S/O Late Shri Chunnilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Singh @ Titar Son of Nahar Singh, by Caste Meena Vs State of Rajasthan, through P.P.