iaesBifa!^ HI6H COURTOf;CHHATTIS6ARH AT MLASPUR Criironal Kwriswn No.76o#aOOT •• s Arolicant ftam Smgh S/&Bishram Singh.Caste- Mahar, <^ed about 28 years, Residait - of - ViiEage^iperchedi, Poiice ; Station-Sarjyabend, Dist>*!ct - Rnipjr ^ Versus f Resoondent State of Chhatl-isgarh through District Magistraf, ftaifair, t3iistHJ<?t -;, Raipur (C.6.) (Revision undsr sectfon 397 read with Section 401 of -ttie Cr.P-C.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. SharmasJ. • s Present:1 • ' ' - ! -:: - ••" • IF :' ;• Mr'. Siivendu Pandya, counsel for -the a^>(tcsnt. Mr.ftajendra Tripathi, Panel lawyer for the Stcrfe/nespondent. ORDER (CTEAU (Passed on 23rd Frisvvaj. 2010) 1. By tiiis reyision, the appliceint hos challei^d •rt?e legality and proprfety of the Judgment dated 2.2.2005 possed by -the Sesaons jHdge, Raipwr'. in Criminal Appea! No.332/2004, affinniny the judgment of eonvistioni & order of s&ntence dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Judicfol Mcgistrate First Class. 6nriy<ibcvid. in Criininat Case No.lB54/2002 trfiereby iearned Judicial Magistrate Fir'st Chtss aftcr holdtng Itie q^liffint guilty for the offence punishabte under Section 34 (1) (f)fof •!+» Chhatl-isgarh Excise Act, 1915 (in short- the Act, t9iS1) sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one snonth and tospa^aipine of Rs.5000/-, in deftiult of payment of fine to further undergo snnpte impr-isonment for two months. 2. The judgment is impugned on •the ground •that um+hout 'there be'ng a"y iota of evidence, the Courts betow haye convicted ond sentenced'the app!icant<md thereby committed illegajtty. ^" 1 r ;y^-r<J>, ^ 'fc^^a. \ i-i^..s-'-^Q iSf^ — ^ ._ 3. Brief facts necessary for diq»osal of this reyision cr« 1t>at on 30.9.2002 at about 11 a-m. •the appliccnt; was •found m possession of formulatsd Mehuwa of 10« kg. atong wrri< oth«r-arl'ictes fon manufac+urin9 of country-made liquor, simss was seized vide &<-P/l. The cpplicant was ar'r'es'ted vide Ex-P/2 by the Excise Officep ond comptaint was filed before the Judicial Mo^islrate -First Oass, Sariyabond. After proyiding an (^orhjnity fff hea!'in3- to the pSB'tjes, the Judicial Aagistrate pifst Ctass has CQnvieted-rtie applicont under Section 34 (1) (f) of the -Act, 1915 ^and senfenced him to undergo '•igorous imprisoninerit for one month and to pay a fine of-R^-WOO/- jn default of paymen* of fine to further undergo smple imprisonment •for two mon-ths which has been affirnied in the oppeal. 4. I have heard learned coun^t for the poirties, perustd 1tie ^-tdgrpent impugned ond reesrds of the Courts betow. 5. Learned counsel for the opplicant submits thast without •thers be'ng emy iota of evidence, the Court-s below haye convictedand sentenced the applicant as aforenpentioned. 6. On the o-ther hand, learned Stnte counsd siyported the judgment impugned and submits that in the pre^t cass, the conyiction is baad on the eyidence of Excise Officar J.K-Aroni (PW-2). r 7. Isn order to appreciate the argurnents advinced on behalf of the part'ies, I have e?<amined the eyidence adduoed m behalf of the prosecution. Excise Officer JXAroni (PW-2) has ccftegoricnlly deposed that formulated Mahuwa foi* prepcffatiwr of cpuntf'y-made liquor was found in posseasior" of the applicant along wi1h other art'icles and the same wos seized yide Ex.P/1. Defence has cross-examined this wHness st length, but has not bee able to elicit cinything 'n his cross- .4 ' examination to discard his testimony. -<.-' ^'•:':;;''". s / -—(?'>- •'<°.!i \ ^^'"5 3.- 8. After cypreciating the eviden<a availobte on recor'd, the trial Ceupt has cowicted a"d imposed minimum sentsnes. The trjal Court has not committed any itlegatity or infirmity in convicting ond awarding miniinum %ntence under Sect-ion 34 (l)(f) of-Hie Ae('.19lS. • ; • . 9. 0> close scrutiny of the eyiden<a I d" nct find any scope of interference. ConseqLiently, •fte nevirion bang wrrtiout tnerifr is IJBhteto be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. T.P. Sharma Judge /" 1 k 1