Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1181 (MP)

Dashrath Singh v. State of M. P.

2005-11-22

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused-applicant against the impugned judgment dismissing the criminal appeal by the appellate Court and affirming the judgment and conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court convicting him under section 34 (2) (1) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and has been sentenced to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs. 25.000/-. in default further RI of three months. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 4.10.2001 at 12.30 p.m. near Gangapur Hanumanji temple at Janakpur road, Assistant Sub-Inspector Manmohan Singh Kushwaha stopped a tractor trolley and on searching the trol1ey it was found that in the heap of the sand, in plastic container Royal Gin liquor was found. 48 containers were seized and in each container there were 200 pouches of the liquor Gin. Necessary Panchnama was prepared and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court. 3. The trial Court framed charges punishable under section 34 (2) (I) of M.P. Excise Act. Needless to emphasise both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Thereafter the prosecution witnesses were examined. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record convicted the accused persons, namely, present appellant Dashrath Singh and Karua and passed the sentence to suffer RI of one year and fine of Rs. 25.000/-. The appeal was preferred by the accused persons, the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the applicant Dashrath Singh. 5. The contention of Shri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that vide Ex. P-l the liquor was seized from the possession of Karua. He has also invited my attention to Ex. P-8 which is an application filed by one Dhaniram addressed to Station Officer in-charge, Morena to deliver the tractor and trolley to him since the same belongs to him. Thus, it has been submitted that neither the liquor was seized from the possession of the applicant nor the applicant is the owner of the tractor and trolley and therefore applicant has been wrongly convicted. 6. Per contra Shri Bhadoria, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of impugned judgment. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 8. 6. Per contra Shri Bhadoria, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of impugned judgment. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The only reason which has been assigned by the Courts below convicting the present applicant is that though the impugned liquor was not found from the possession of the present applicant nor he is the owner of the tractor and trolley since he was sitting in the tractor along with co-accused Karua and he is also a resident of Dholpur, therefore, the liquor which was kept in the heap of the sand must be in the knowledge of the applicant Dashrath. On scrutiny of the record, I am of the view that the reasons which are assigned to convict the present applicant are not cogent since there is no evidence in that regard. On going through Ex. P-l which is a seizure memo, it is gathered that the liquor was seized from the possession of Karua. On going through Ex. P-8, it is found that the impugned tractor and trolley belongs to Dhaniram and therefore neither the applicant is the owner of the tractor and trolley nor the liquor was found from his possession. There is no evidence that applicant was aware about the liquor which was kept in the heap of sand. Since there is no evidence against the applicant, the view of this Court is that he has been· wrongly convicted. 9. Resultantly, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of applicant is hereby set aside. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the applicant.