.^SSS^ B :€<f!:'iSSS& g '•..SS3' HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH. BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 264/2003 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Shivprasad son of Shri Nankun Yadav, aged about 34 years, resident of Faguram, P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS . The State of Chhattisgarh, through: District Magistrate, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. ApBearance: Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyerforthe State. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.J. ORAL ORDER (16.09.2011) \t Heard. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2003 passed in a Criminal Appeal by the Additional Session Judge Shakti. The said criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 05.121.2002 passed in Criminal Case No. 1574/2002 by the Additional Chief Judiciat Magistrate, Shakti, by which the applicant was convicted^under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo S.l. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default sentence of 8.1. for 6 months. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.08.2002 at about 5:15 a.m. the two accused persons namely Shivprasad (applicant herein) and Laxmi Narayan were found in possession of 60 bulk liters of itlegal liquor which they had kept in four plastic containers. They were caught by Excise Sub-lnspector P.L. Naik (P.W.1), who was accompanied by B.D. Patre (P.W.3) and K.L. Patel (P.W.4). The seizure meme Ex-P-1 and Paochnama Ex-P-2 were prepared. I •^|.l:t:;t);>T.t:;'T':-T. \f \ v;W : .aS'?"' B!N:!i:1:'::.IJ6?!^—u/ff";l: :'^ituiaiid>L-^:-^ r*i j di' ruf-! ftL^UtlN ^..aj, // ..^" "II- M CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 264/2003 The learned Trial Judge, on due appreciation on the evidence of above three witnesses i.e. P.L. Naik (P.W.1), B.D. Patre (P.W.3) and K.L. Patel (P.W.4) found that the prosecution had proved that the applicant was found in possession ofillegal liquor and was liable for punishment under Section 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act. The Appellate Court has further appreciated the evidence of Excise Sub-lnspector P.L. Naik (P.W.1) and the other two witnesses B.D. Patre (P.W.3) and K.L. Patel (P.W.4) and has found that the Findings recorded by the Trial Court werejust and proper. Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that the conviction is mainly based on sole testimony of Excise Sub-lnspector P.L. Naik (P.W.!), therefore, the same cannot be sustained. ; There is no preposition in law that the statement of an official witness like investigating officer alone cannot be relied for conviction of an accused. If the evidence of investigating officer is true and correct and nothing has been brought in the cross examination to shadowlhis evidence and in appreciation, it does not appear that any portion of his evidence was doubtful, his sole evidence can be relied on and if by the said evidence the alleged offences is proved, the conviction can be awardedon the said evidence. In the present case, the two Courts below have held that the evidence of Excise Sub-lnspector P.L. Naik (P.W.1) was fully reliable and the conviction has been bases on his sole testimony. Apart from the above, his evidence was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses i.e. B.D. Patre (P.W.3) and K.L. Patel (P.W.4). On due consideration of the entire material on record, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and findings recorded by the two Courts below. The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarity. __—— - Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge -B-ttttiltt^?