Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 236 (MP)

Umesh v. State of M. P.

2012-02-24

M.C.GARG

body2012
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who is in judicial custody against the order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 424/2009, whereby the learned Judge has found the petitioner guilty under section 34 (1) (a) (2) of the M.P. Excise Act. The Sessions Judge has confirmed the sentence of RI for one year with payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in criminal case No. 9478/2009 vide order dated 07.07.09. 2. According to the petitioner, the judgment of the lower Court as well as of the Sessions Court are contrary to law and the facts available on record because neither it is legal nor proper. While delivering the impugned order, the lower Court is stated to have drawn wrong conclusions. It is also submitted that it was a fit case, where the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of probation, in as much as the petitioner is first offender and it is the first case in which he was convicted. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of section 34 (1) (a) (2) of the M.P. Excise Act was not proved in this case. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government counsel. 4. In this case, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate where the case was orginally tried under under section 34 (1) (a) (2) of the M.P. Excise Act, held him guilty of the commission of offence for which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year besides payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Sessions Court. 5. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that on 3.3.2009, on receipt of information from the secret informer, the police party stopped one two wheeler bearing registration No. MP09-JG-3044. The scooter was driven by Umesh Rai and on the back of it two bags (tat) was stood hanging which was tied with a rope. On being checked, it is found that each of the bag contained 150 bottles of Deshi Madira Masala, each, pav 180 ml of Madira (Liquor). The liquor was kept without any licence on the scooter. As such, the liquor was taken in possession. 6. After completion of the investigation, case was sent for trial. On being checked, it is found that each of the bag contained 150 bottles of Deshi Madira Masala, each, pav 180 ml of Madira (Liquor). The liquor was kept without any licence on the scooter. As such, the liquor was taken in possession. 6. After completion of the investigation, case was sent for trial. Since the accused persons denied the charges levelled, the prosecution examined witnesses and proved the case on the basis of evidence which came on record. The trial Judge convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as stated above. 7. The Sessions Court has taken note of the evidence which has come on record in the form of seizure memo Ex. P-3, cite plan, Ex. P-4 and the statement of the witnesses produced on record. The trial Judge convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as stated above. 7. The Sessions Court has taken note of the evidence which has come on record in the form of seizure memo Ex. P-3, cite plan, Ex. P-4 and the statement of the witnesses produced on record. In para 6, the Sessions Court had made the following observations :-” ^^6- vkj-,p- ipksjh ¼v-lk- 1½ us ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd xokgksa ds le{k LdwVj vkSj 300 iko efnjk tIr dj tIrh i= iz-ih- 2 cuk;k Fkk] vfHk;qDr dks fxjQ~rkj dj iapukek iz-ih- 3 cuk;k o ?kVuk LFky dk uD’kk ekSdk iz-ih- 4 cuk;k FkkA vfHk;qDr dk dFku iz-ih- 5 Hkh fy;k FkkA lk{kh izeksn dqekj o v’kksd dqekj ds dFku muds crk;s vuqlkj ys[k fd;s FksA vkcdkjh vkj{kd fd’kksj tk;loky ¼v-lk- 2½ lk{kh izeksn tk;loky ¼v-lk- 4½ ,oa v’kksd dqekj ¼v-lk- 4½ ds }kjk Hkh vkj ,p ipksjh ¼v-lk- 1½ ds dFkuksa dk leFkZu fd;k x;k gS rFkk muds le{k vfHk;qDr dks LdwVj ls vkrs le; mls jksddj tkap djus ij LdwVj ds ihNs dV~Vksa esa 300 DokVj ns’kh efnjk elkyk gksuk] vkcdkjh mifujh{kd }kjk ijh{k.k dj izfrosnu iz-ih- 1 fn;k tkuk] muds le{k tIr dj tIrh i= iz-ih- 2 fxjQ~rkj dj fxjQ~rkjh iapukek iz-ih- 3] uD’kk ekSdk iz-ih- 4 cuk;k tkuk crk;k x;k gSA mijksDr pkjksa lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; izfrijh{k.k esa Hkh iw.kZr;k v[kafMr jgh gSA vkcdkjh mifujh{kd vkj-,p- ipksjh ¼v-lk-1½ rFkk vkcdkjh vkj{kd fd’kksj tk;loky ¼v-lk- 2½] lk{kh izeksn tk;loky ¼v-lk- 4½ ,oa v’kksd dqekj ¼v-lk- 4½ dh vfHk;qDr ls dksbZ iwoZ dh dksbZ jaft’k ugha gSA vr% muds }kjk vfHk;qDr dks voS/k efnjk ds vijk/k esa >wBk lafyIr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA ;|fi vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls mls jaft’k ds dkj.k >wBk Qalk;s tkus dk lq>ko fn;k x;k gS] fdarq lkf{k;ksa ls D;k jaft’k Fkh ;g izfrijh{k.k esa Li”V ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftl vf/kdkjh ds }kjk efnjk tIr dh xbZ gS mlh ds }kjk ‘ks”k vuqla/kku fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij gh ,sls vf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k x;k vuqla/kku dk;Zokgh ‘kadkLin ugha gksrh gSA ek= vkcdkjh foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh gksus ds dkj.k gh lk{kh vkj-,p-ipksjh ¼v-lk-1½ o fd’kksj ¼v-lk- 2½ dh lk{; ij vfo’okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk mudh lk{; iw.kZ leFkZu lk{kh izeksn tk;loky ¼v-lk-4½ ,oa v’kksd dqekj ¼v-lk- 4½ dh lk{; ls Hkh gqvk gSA vr% vfHk;qDr ds vkf/kiR; ls 300 DokVj vFkkZr 54 yhVj ns’kh efnjk tIr fd;s tkuk izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA** 8. In the testing of the liquor, it has been observed that even the seized liquor was not tested by hydrometer and thermometer, but on smelling the same it was found that the seized bottles contained liquor. In this regard, it has been observed in para 8 as under :- ^^8- vkcdkjh mifujh{kd vkj-,p- ipksjh ¼v-lk- 1½ us viuh lk{; esa Li”V :i ls tIn’kqnk 4&4 DokVj dks fudkydj lwa?kdj] p[kdj] ns[kdj] yhVel isij Mkydj vkSj gkbMªksehVj o FkekZehVj i)fr ls ijh{k.k fd;s tkus ij n`O; dks ns’kh efnjk elkyk gksuk O;Dr fd;k x;k gS ,oa mlds tkap izfrosnu iz-ih-1 esa Hkh mDr fof/k;ksa ls tkap fd;s tkus ds rF; dk;Z mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA lk{kh vkj-,p- ipksjh ¼v-lk- 1½ ds izfrijh{k.k esa mDr fof/k;ksa ls tkpa fd;s tkus dks pqukSfr ugha nh xbZ gSA ek= lkjh dk;Zokgh vlR; :i ls fd;s tkus dk lq>ko fn;k x;k gS ftls lk{kh us vLohdkj fd;k gSA vr% lq[kyky fo- e-iz- jkT; 1995 lh vkj ,y ts 1234 esa ek- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij jklk;fud ijh{k.k ugha djk;s tkus ij Hkh 15 o”kZ ds vuqHkoh ,oa izf’k{k.k izkIr vkcdkjh mifujh{kd vkj-,p- ipksjh ¼v-lk- 1½ }kjk dh xbZ efnjk dh tkap ,oa mlds tkap izfrosnu dks fo’okl ;ksX; gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA ifj.kker% tIr’kqnk rjy inkFkZ ns’kh efnjk gksuk izekf.kd ik;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls bruh vf/kd ek=k esa vius vkf/kiR; esa efnjk j[kus dh vuqKfIr iznf’kZr ugha dh xbZ gS A vr% mDr efnjk dks voS/k efnjk gksuk izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qDr dks 50 cYd yhVj ls vf/kd ns’kh efnjk j[kus ds vkjksi esa nks”kfl) fd;k x;k gSA vr% fopkj.k U;k;kky; dks nks”kflf) laca/kh fu”d”kZ lk{; ,oa fof/k ds mfpr ewY;kadu ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls mldh iqf”V dh tkrh gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk 50 cYd yhVj ls vf/kd ek=k esa ‘kjkc ifjogu ds vijk/k ,oa lekt esa ‘kjkc ds nq”izHkko dks ns[krs gq;s /kkjk 34 ¼1½ ¼d½ ¼2½ e-iz- vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k esa U;wure naM ls gh nafMr fd;k x;k gSA vr% naMkKk laca/kh fu”d”kZ dh Hkh iqf”V djrs gq;s vihy lkjghu gksus ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA** 9. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case, where the same person who was the seizing officer also investigated the matter and thus, there was a basic infirmity in the case of the prosecution which strikes at the root of the trial and thus, in this case, the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in the case of Megha Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 2339 . In the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed in para 4 as under:- “4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in the depositions of the PWs. 2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancy does not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. PW-3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under S. 161 CrPC. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the evidence of PW-1, Shri. R.H. Pachori, the Investigating Officer, who has admitted that he was the seizing officer as well as the Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the evidence of PW-1, Shri. R.H. Pachori, the Investigating Officer, who has admitted that he was the seizing officer as well as the Investigating Officer of the case. His entire statement is relevant and is reproduced hereinbelow :- ^^1- eSa fnukad 3-3-2009 dks vkcdkjh o`Rr Nkouh esa vkcdkjh mifujh{kd ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA mDr fnukad dks eq[kfcj ls feyh lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa vkcdkjh iqfyl cy dks ysdj ewlk[ksM+h pkSjkgk fjaxjksM x;k Fkk vkSj ogkWa eq[kfcj ls feyh lwpuk ds vuqlkj okgu dh izfr{kk djus yxkA mlh le; fiify;kgkuk pkSjkgs dh vksj ls LdwVj dzekad ,e ih 09 ts-th- 3044 vkrs gq;s fn[kkbZ fn;k] ftls jksdk x;k] ftl ij vkjksih cSBk gqvk FkkA iwNus ij mlus viuk uke mes’k gksuk crk;k FkkA LdwVj ds ihNs VkV ds nks cM+s FkSys Vaxs gq;s FksA ftUgas lk{khx.k ds le{k [kksydj ns[kk x;k] rks VkV ds nksuksa FkSyksa esa 300 iko ns’kh efnjk elkyk ds iko ik;s x;s FksA vkjksih ds ikl efnjk ds ifjogu gsrq dksbZ vuqKk&i= ugha FkkA 2- eSaus izR;sd FkSys ls 4&4 iko fudkydj lwa?kdj] p[kdj ns[kdj] fyVel isij Mkydj vkSj gkbZMªksehVj vkSj FkekZehVj i)fr ls nzO; dk ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk rFkk ik;k Fkk fd nzO; ns’kh efnjk elkyk gSA eq>s 15 o”kZ dk efnjk ds ijh{k.k dk foHkkxh; vuqHko gSA efnjk ijh{k.k izfrosnu iz-ih- 1 gS] ftl in , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA 3- eSaus ekSds ij lk{khx.k ds LdwVj vkSj efnjk ds 300 iko tIr fd;s FksA tIrh iapukek iz-ih- 2 gS] ftl ij ,- ls ,- Hkkx esjs gLrk{kj gSA ekSds ij vkjksih dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k FkkA fxjQ~rkjh iapukek iz-ih- 3 gS] ftl ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gaSA 4- eSaus ?kVukLFky dk uD’kk ekSdk cuk;k Fkk] tks iz-ih- 4 gS] ftl ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA eSaus vkjksih dk dFku mlds dgs vuqlkj ys[kc) fd;k Fkk] tks iz-ih- 5 gS] ftl ij ,-ls ,- Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gaSA eSus izeksndqekj vkSj v’kksd vkSj fd’kksj tk;loky ds dFku muds dgs vuqlkj ys[kc) fd;s FksA 5- eSus {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh bankSj dks tIr’kqnk LdwVj ds laca/k esa tkudkjh ckcn i= fy[kk Fkk] tks iz-ih- 5 gS] ftl ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh us LdwVj dz- ,e ih 09 ts th 3044 cyjke uked O;fDr ds uke iath;r gksuk crk;k FkkA** 11. The statement of PW-1 leaves no room for doubt that he was the seizing officer as well as the investigating officer. Thus, he was not only the complainant, but also the investigating officer. 12. Taking note of the judgment as referred above, it is apparent that the investigation of this case is illegal and therefore the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Consequently, the judgment of the Sessions Court as well as of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted forthwith. His bail bonds are discharged. If the petitioner is not wanted in any other case, the Jail Superintendent will release him from the custody. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent.