Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 254 (JHR)

Sona Ram Sao, Son of Dubal Sao v. State of Bihar

2017-02-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Both these revision applications are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned A.P.P. 3. In this application the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 18.04.2000 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi dated 30.06.1999 in G.R. Case No.206 of 1994 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been dismissed. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no independent witnesses had been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. It has been stated that all the witnesses are basically the members of the raiding parties which should have been disbelieved by the learned trial court. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the seizure list witnesses did not support the prosecution case as they have categorically stated that no seizure was made in their presence. Although the seizure list was prepared but nothing has been seized in their presence. 5. In the alternative an argument has put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the Court does not feel inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction, the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced substantially considering the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since last twenty three years. 6. It appears from the allegation made in the prosecution report that a raid was conducted by the Police with respect to an information about manufacturing and selling of country made liquor and from the house of the petitioners twenty eight bags of Mahua and five kilograms of Gur and some contents of country made liquor were recovered. It appears that the house of other persons were also raided and several incriminating articles with respect to preparation of illicit country made liquor was recovered. 7. Based on the aforesaid allegation Kanke P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994 was instituted. 8. It appears that the house of other persons were also raided and several incriminating articles with respect to preparation of illicit country made liquor was recovered. 7. Based on the aforesaid allegation Kanke P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994 was instituted. 8. After conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken and the charge was framed under Sections 272, 290 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 30.06.1999 has been pleased to convict the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 47 (A) of the Excise Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.104 of 1999 which, however, was dismissed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide judgment dated 18.04.2000. 10. It appears that the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. 11. P.W. 1 was Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who had taken part in the raid and who had supported the prosecution case with respect to the recovery of incriminating articles from the house of the petitioners. The evidence of P.W. 1 has been corroborated by P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 who all are Police constables and were the members of the raiding party. 12. The seizure list witnesses have supported the fact with respect to the signatures in the seizure list. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act and the judgment was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court. 13. There being no reasons to interfere in the orders passed by the learned courts below, this application fails and the same is dismissed so far as the challenge which has been made to the conviction is concerned. 14. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners, the petitioners appear to be facing the rigors of prosecution for the last more than twenty three years. The petitioners seem to have remained in custody for a period of about one month after dismissal of his appeal. 14. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners, the petitioners appear to be facing the rigors of prosecution for the last more than twenty three years. The petitioners seem to have remained in custody for a period of about one month after dismissal of his appeal. In such view of the matter, therefore, the petitioners seems to have sufficiently been punished. Accordingly, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 15. These applications stand dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.