Chattisgarh High Court
Virendra Paras vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1024 of 2016
ORDER RESERVED ON 19.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON 01.04.2026
Virendra Paras S/o Khemlal Paras Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Sambalpur, Thana Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant
versus
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANJANI
KUMAR
Date:
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Thana- Arjuni, District
2026.04.01
15:50:25
+0530 Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Ashwell Franklin appears on behalf of Shri Samir Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) CAV Order
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.53/2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed and affirmed the conviction of the applicant/accused under Section 34 (1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the sentence of S.I. for six months with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, to further undergo SI for three months as passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.1066/2015 vide its judgment dated 30.04.2016.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.10.2015, when the P.S.I. Satyam Chouhan (P.W.4) of Police Station Dhamtari along with Constables No.620, 708 & 570 was on patrolling duty, at that time, he received 2 information from the informer that the applicant is involved in selling liquor illegally and kept the same near village Arjujni turn. On receipt of such information, he rushed to the spot along with staff and laid a siege and caught the applicant possessing 20 quarters Goa whiskey kept in white carton in a plastic bag, then P.W.4 Satyam Singh Chouhan served a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the applicant, thereupon the applicant could not produce any documents. Thereafter, P.W.4 Satyam Singh Chouhan seized the carton containing 20 quarter bottles of liquor vide Ex.P.2 before the witnesses. The seized article was sent for chemical examination and upon examination, vide Ex.P.7 it was found to be whiskey.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 34 (a) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant and the said judgment was appealed in Appellate Court and the Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the conviction of the applicant recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Excise Act is erroneous. He would next contend that even P.W.1 Constable Yuvaraj Thakur has not stated anywhere about the place where the alleged incident happened and that, the other prosecution witnesses have also not properly 3 supported the case of the prosecution. He would also submit that the prosecution has also not been able to show as to where the seized article was kept in safe custody after seizure proceedings are completed by it. It would also submit by him that no Malkhana register was produced before the Court nor any person, who kept the seized article, has been examined by the prosecution. He would also contend that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed this revision on additional ground of non- compliance of Section 57 (a) of the Excise Act, which vitiates the prosecution case. In support of his arguments, he placed his reliance upon a decision rendered in the matter of Suresh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2006 (3) CGLJ 259.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the revision and submit that both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after properly appreciating the evidence on record, have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, which finding does not call for interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.
8. Investigating Officer Satyam Singh Chouhan (P.W.4) stated that after receipt of information from the informer, he rushed the spot along with staff and seized the 20 quarter bottles of liquor on the spot. He further stated that at 7:30 pm he along with staff departed for the scene and arrived there approximately at 7:45 pm, thus it took 15 minutes gap to reach the spot and for verification of the proceedings, this witness accompanied by the staff was present there for half an hour. He further stated that the accused was standing at Arjuni Chowk, a public place and crowded National Highway area with shops, hotels and constant traffic and they found the applicant placing a 4 plastic bottles of liquor in a pit by the road side where the liquor was seized and that, the investigation took place about 15 - 20 minutes. He stated further that the seized article was brought to the police station and handed over the same to Malkhana Munshi on the same date. As per the statement of P.W.1 Constable Yuvraj Thakur, who was accompanied with P.W.4 Satyam Singh Chouhan, Satyam Singh Chouhan (P.W.4) received an information from the informer that a man was carrying illicit liquor on a scooter and in cross-examination, this witness admitted that they apprehended the accused and brought him to the police station, but he did not aware of what action has been taken. Independent witness P.W.2 Hemant Yadav stated that no one else was present at the time when he signed the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, i.e., crime details form, property seizure memo and arrest memo. Another independent witness P.W.3 Mahipal Gowli stated that when he was going to Sambalpur, on way at Arjuni turn, police personnel made him as witness to the incident and he signed the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, but they did not read out the written documents before him nor did he read them out.
9. A perusal of above evidence of the witnesses, this Court found that there are contradictions and omissions in their statements and does not corroborate with each other. P.W.4 Satyam Singh Chouhan, Investigating Officer stated that they seized liquor on the spot. He further stated that the accused was found at Arjuni Chowk (a public place on a busy National Highway) and liquor was seized from a pit near the roadside. P.W.1 Yuvraj Thakur said the information was about a man carrying liquor on a scooter whereas P.W.4 Satyam Singh Chouhan stated that the accused was standing while placing liquor in a pit. P.W.4 Satyam Singh Chouhan claimed that the seizure happened at a crowded public place (NH with shops, hotels, traffic). P.W.2 Hemant Yadav said that no one else was present when he signed 5 documents, however, on the contrary, P.W.3 Mahipal Gowli indicated that he was casually picked up and made a witness. P.W.2 Hemant Yadav said that he signed documents without presence of others whereas P.W.3 Mahipal Gowli said that documents were not read over to him and he did not read them. P.W.1 Yuvraj Thakur did not state that the liquor was seized on the spot in possession of accused/applicant. Investigating Officer said that after seizure of article, it was handed to Malkhana Munshi, but there was no copy of Malkhana register produced. Further, there is no evidence on record to show where was the alleged seized article kept and whether it was kept in safe custody. Moreover, it was also not revealed that whether the seized article was produced before the Court or not. Furthermore, no Malkhana register was produced before the Court nor any person, who kept the seized article, has been examined by the prosecution.
10. It is bounden duty of the prosecution to seal the seized property and to keep the same in safe custody, but the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty. The prosecution has also not been able to show the exact place from where the liquor was seized. This apart, the provisions of Section 57 (a) of the Excise Act have also not been complied with by the prosecution.
11. Dealing with the issue, this Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar (supra) has observed as under:
"10. It is pertinent to note from the order sheet dated 01-10-2004 written by the trial Judge that the seized property was not produced before the Court. No reason has been signed by the Excise Sub Inspector Shri K.L. Taram PW-2 for not depositing the Jerrican containing 30 liters of country made liquor with the Officer in charge of the concerned Police Station or to take any samples there from and to seal it. There is nothing on record to show as to where and in whose custody the 30 bulk liters of country made liquor was kept till filing of challan on 01-10-2004. There is also nothing to show that Excise Sub Inspector Shri K.L. Taram PW-2 had, within 24 hours after making the seizure made a full report of all the particulars of arrest, seizure or search to his immediate official superior as required under Section - 57 of the Act. Thus, there is total non-compliance of Section-- of the Act.
11. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution, the 6 following points emerge:
(A) There is total non-compliance of Section-- of the Act by Excise Sub Inspector K.L. Taram PW-2 which vitiates the prosecution.
(B) It is not established beyond doubt that the Applicant was found in possession of country made liquor in excess of 25 bulk liters.
(C ) Testimony of Shri K.L. Taram PW-2 is rendered doubtful since he did not produce the intoxicant alleged to have been seized from the Applicant in the trial Court.
(D) Independent witness Ishwar Prasad PW-1 and Neeraj Shrivastava PW-3 did not corroborate the testimony of Excise Sub Inspector K.L. Taram PW-2 relating to seizure and test performed upon the intoxicant alleged to have been seized from the possession of the Applicant.
12. In the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under Section-34(1)(a) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the sentence awarded there under are set aside. The Applicant is acquitted. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to the Applicant."
12. By applying the decision to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of the applicant under Section 34 (1) (a) of the C.G. Excise Act and the sentence awarded thereunder being contrary to the law is liable to be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 34 (1) (a) of the C.G. Excise Act and the sentence awarded thereunder is hereby set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the aforesaid charge by giving him benefit of doubt. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.
13. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The applicant is reported to be on bail and his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S. Records of both the Courts be sent back to the concerned Courts along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Anjani JUDGE