Full Judgment
CRR No.359/1999 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava CRIMINAL REVISION No.359/1999 Applicant: Harprasad s/o Peeru Chamar, R/o Village : Kolua-Semra, P.S. Naryawali, Tehsil and District Sagar (M.P.) Versus Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. --------------------------------------------- ORDER
(Delivered on this 25th day of April, 2013) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.2.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.189/1998 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.9.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar in Criminal Case No.594/1996 convicting the applicant under Section 49-A(1)(a) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default; further R.I. for 1 month, the applicant has preferred this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CRR No.359/199”
2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purposes of disposal of this revision since they are narrated in detail in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to say that the applicant along with co-accused Dilip Kumar was tried for the offence punishable under Section 49-A(1)(a) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (in short “the Excise Act”.). The learned Trial Court after examining the evidence vis-a-vis to each other acquitted the co- accused Dilip Kumar from the said charge, however, came to hold that charge under Section 49-A(1)(a) of the Excise Act is proved against the applicant since the country made liquor which was seized from his possession was found to be unfit for human consumption and eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned above. The appeal which was filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. In this manner this revision application has been filed by the applicant.
3. I have heard Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pushpraj Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed in part.
4. The only contention put forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned two Courts below erred in convicting the applicant under Section 49-A(1)(a) of the Excise Act, however, on going through the record I find that by correct appreciation of CRR No.359/1999 3 evidence the learned two Courts below have found that 160 liter of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant which has been found to be unfit for human consumption. The learned Two Courts below have assigned the cogent reasons in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 49-A(1)(a) of the Excise Act. The reasons so assigned are based on correct appreciation of evidence and no interference is called for as they are pure findings of fact. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant is accordingly affirmed.
5. An alternative submission has also been put forth by learned counsel applicant that some lenient view be adopted while passing the sentence. This contention is vehemently opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
6. I shall not consider the alternative submission put forth by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the first time applicant has been prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. It has also been submitted that the applicant-accused has already suffered the Jail sentence of one month out of one year. The applicant is present in the Court and has been identified by his counsel. Looking to the physical condition of the applicant, it would not be appropriate to send him behind the bars once again and that too after 14 years and hence, the appellant is hereby sentenced for the period he had already undergone provided that he deposits a sum of Rs.5000/- more in CRR No.359/1999 4 the Trial Court towards fine for the offence he has committed. Let the balance amount of fine Rs.5000/- be deposited in the Trial Court on or before 2nd July, 2013. The amount of fine may be deposited in the entirety or in installment. However, it is made clear that only upon depositing Rs.5,000/- more by the applicant, he shall be enlarged for the period he had already undergone. It is further made clear that in case the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount, he shall further undergo the remaining Jail sentence.
7. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged only after deposition of the amount of fine in the Trial Court before the stipulated date, failing which the learned Trial Court shall send him to jail to suffer the remaining Jail sentence.
8. Resultantly, this revision application succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bond papers in the Trial Court and photocopy thereof be retained in the file. The impugned judgment of conviction of applicant under Section 49-A(1)(a) of the Excise Act passed by learned Trial Court, which has been affirmed by learned Appellate Court is hereby affirmed. However, his sentence is modified as indicated hereinabove. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 25-04-2013. S/