Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mp excise act in Bhishma Singh Thakur @ Pappu Doctor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2018Matching Fragments
Petitioner has filed this application for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime sh No.345/2017 registered at Police Station-Jawar District-Sehore for e offence under Section 34 (2) of MP Excise Act.
ad
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on a tip from the Pr informer to the Police Chowki- Mahtawara Police Station- Jawar that at village Semliwari Nath Mohalla, the accused persons Sanjay Nath a hy and Pooranchandra are selling illicit liquor, on 22.11.2017, the police party intercepted the accused Sanjay Nath and Pooranchandra Nath to ad their custody. Illicit liquor has been seized under Section 34(2) of the M MP Excise Act. During the interrogation, the accused persons Sanjay Nath and Pooranchandra Nath informed the police that liquor, which of has been seized belonged to Bheeshm Singh Thakur, resident of rt village Mahtawara, therefore, the police tried to arrest the accused ou Bheeshm Singh @ Pappu Doctor, but he could not be traced.
4. Learned Govt. Adv. for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the submissions and contended that the illicit liquor has been seized from the co-accused persons. The petitioner has been named by the co-accused persons. It is stated that the petitioner has asked them to distribute liquor, therefore, they acted on the direction of the petitioner. The petitioner is liable for having committed offence under Section 34 (2) of MP Excise Act.
5. On analyzing the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is crystal clear that the evidence of memoranda given by the co- accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the police can be accepted so far as articles recovered from the accused and for the discovery of the items. Except the above circumstances, no other evidence has been collected in the present case, against the present petitioner. Hence, it is prima-facie indicated that the applicant has conspired or connived with the accused persons and with an intention has committed the crime cannot be presumed.