Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 CRR No.-3601-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHEI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 4th OF MAY, 2022
Criminal Revision No.3601 of 2021
Between :
Sunil Verma S/o Champalal
Verma, Aged about 29 years, R/o
Joshi Colony Gali No.07, Harda,
District-Harda (M.P.)
..... Petitioner
(By Shri Kamal Singh Rajput, Advocate)
AND
The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through-The Excise Circle, Harda,
District-Harda (M.P.)
...... Respondent
(Shri Shailesh Khampariya, Panel Lawyer)
..............................................................................................................
This revision petition coming for consideration of I.A. No.6172/2022-
an application under Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of
sentence of the petitioner, this day the Court passed the following:
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
By way of present revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.01/2020 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Harda, District-Harda (M.P.) whereby Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.05.06 17:52:58 IST 2 CRR No.-3601-2021 the judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.1601193/2016 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harda, District- Harda (M.P.) has been upheld. Vide said judgment, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulations.
2- The case of the prosecution, in short, is that after receiving an information on 18.09.2016, Excise Officer, Circle Harda, Mangal Singh Dodiyar reached Indore Nagpur By-pass Road near Bansal Petrol Pump and laid a trap. After waiting for sometime, they noticed a white colour Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.MP-04-BC- 3528 coming on Timerni Road from the side of Double Phatak Road. They surrounded the vehicle which was bearing registration No.MP- 04-BC-3528 and interrogated the driver of the vehicle. The driver revealed his name Sunil Verma S/o Champalal Verma. 3- Following the due process of law, the vehicle was searched. 20 boxes of plain country liquor containing 180 bulk litres liquor were found on the rear seat of the vehicle. On enquiry, the driver did not produce any pass, permit or any other authorization to carry the liquor, therefore, before witnesses Gunwant, Ramakant @ Premchand and Devnath, the liquor was seized and the case was registered. The petitioner was charge-sheeted, charged and tried for the offence punishable as stated in paragraph No.1 above.
4- The petitioner has preferred this petition on the grounds that both the Courts below have erred in recording conviction against the petitioner that too on the basis of contradictory and inconsistent pleas having been taken by the prosecution witnesses. The conclusion of both the Courts below are based on the hearsay evidence or the statements of the interested witnesses. There is no eye-witness in the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.05.06 17:52:58 IST 3 CRR No.-3601-2021 case. Contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of the witnesses have not been considered. The conviction of the petitioner has been recorded, even when most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The statements of witnesses are not reliable. The conviction of the petitioner cannot be recorded on the basis of solitary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The sentence is much severe and uncalled for. The defence version has not been considered and has not been accepted by the trial Court for no reason, therefore, the impugned conviction be set-aside. 5- In his arguments, the ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and they are departmental employees. Independent witnesses are not supported the prosecution case and they are the pocket witnesses of the Excise Officer. They does not belong to the place of the recovery. The action of the officials is biased against the petitioner as neither any investigation is conducted with regard to the owner of the vehicle or with regard to the owner of the liquor seized. The officials have also not taken pains to find out the source of liquor or the point of delivery. All this shows that the officials have falsely implicated the petitioner in the case, therefore, he deserves to be acquitted.
6- Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the petition and supported the impugned judgment.
7- I have heard the rival contentions of the ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8- The prosecution has examined Devdatt (P.W.-1), Ramakant @ Premchand (P.W.-2), peon of Excise Department Gunwant (P.W.-3) Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.05.06 17:52:58 IST 4 CRR No.-3601-2021 and Excise Sub-Inspector Mangal Singh Dodiyar (P.W.-4) who effected the recovery.
9- Before the trial Court, Excise Sub-Inspector Mangal Singh Dodiyar has revealed the entire incident. He deposed on oath that on 18.09.2016, he received information with regard to illegal transportation of liquor. Acting on this information when he caught Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. MP-04-BC-3528 and searched it, found 20 boxes containing 50 quarter bottles in each box filled with 180 ml. in each bottle, total 1000 quarters bottles containing 180 bulk litres liquor found in the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle/the petitioner was caught on the spot. He could not produce any valid papers, permit or authorization to transport the seized liquor. Therefore, liquor was seized and the petitioner was arrested. Later, chemical examination confirmed that the seized liquid was liquor, 10- Peon of Excise Department Gunwant (P.W.-1) and independent witnesses Devdatt and Ramakant @ Premchand have fully supported the statement of the Excise Officer. None of them could be contradicted in their cross-examination. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of all these witnesses and reached on the concurrent findings that there is nothing to doubt or disbelieve the recovery effected by the Excise Officer.
11- The entire arguments of the ld. counsel for the petitioner revolves around shortcoming of the investigation with regard to the source of procuring the seized liquor or the point of the delivery thereof. But, this does not entitle the petitioner to get any benefit. The case of the petitioner has to be appreciated on the basis of evidence produce on record against him and on this parameter, no illegality or perversity appears in the appreciation of evidence done by both the Courts below.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.05.06 17:52:58 IST 5 CRR No.-3601-202112- The ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Roopsingh Vs. State of M.P. reported in LAWS (MPH) 2020 6 526 :
CRR No.800/2020 on 08.06.2020. But, this order is related to the disposal of the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant therein. In this case, it has been held that Hon'ble the Apex Court in number of decisions has reiterated that conviction can be based only on the basis of evidence of investigating officer. The plea of the petitioner that his sentence may be reduced to the certain period was also declined in this petition observing that minimum sentence prescribed for the offence found proved is minimum 1 year and that cannot be reduced.
13- Further, the reliance has been placed by the ld. counsel for the petitioner in the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Mithun Vs. State of M.P. Criminal Revision No.1598/2020 decided on 13.08.2020 wherein distinguishing the case of Mohanlal Vs. State of Punjab (2018) SCC On-line SC 974], this Court has held that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. It is not stated therein that complainant and investigator must not be the same person. In that case, the informant and the investigator were two different persons, therefore, the Court held that Mohanlal case (supra) is not applicable. The identical situation exists in the present case. Besides, the law laid down in the Mohanlal case (supra) has been further developed in the case of Mukesh Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 wherein the five judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the statement of the investigating officer cannot be discarded on the ground that informant and investigating officer is the same person until and unless Signature Not Verified SAN the prejudice caused to the petitioner is shown. In the present case, Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.05.06 17:52:58 IST 6 CRR No.-3601-2021 even it is not argued that since the informant and the investigator are the same person, any prejudice is caused to the petitioner, therefore, Mithun's case (supra) is not useful to the petitioner. In the present case, there is nothing to doubt or disbelieve the statement of Investigating Officer Mangal Singh Dodiyar which is further supported by the statements of witnesses Gunwant, Devdatt and Ramakant @ Premchand and the recovery made from the petitioner.
No ground to interfere with the impugned orders of both the Courts below is made out.
14- In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by both the Courts below. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly.
(Virender Singh) Judge @shish Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.05.06 17:52:58 IST