State Of Chhattisgarh vs Puniram
2022 Latest Caselaw 851 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                   NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       ACQA No. 63 of 2011


      The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Excise Sub
       Inspector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.).
                                                        ---- Applicant
                                 Versus

      Puniram S/o Kaniram, Caste Ghasiya, aged about 51
       years, R/o village Baispali, P.S. Kotara road, Raigarh.


                                                   ---- Respondents

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Raghavendra Verma, G.A. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Adv.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey

Judgment on Board

18/02/2022

1. The present petition has been filed by the State seeking

leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and

order dated 20.09.2010 passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.516/2009

acquitting the accused/respondent for the offence

punishable under Section 34(1)(A) of the Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Viniya Dixit, Excise

Sub Inspector, acting on a tip-off, went to Baispali,

Raigarh and raided the house of accused/respondent

and found 10 liters of hand made (Mahuwa) liquor, which

was kept for sale. On the basis of which, case was

registered and after due investigation, charge sheet was

filed. The trial Judge framed the charges against

accused/respondent under Section 34(1)(A) of the

Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

3. The acquittal of appellant rests on the ground that

despite issuing several summons, no witness has been

examined by the prosecution. The learned trial Court

recorded that it being a summons case, the opportunity

of prosecution evidence was closed.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court

has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondent.

He submits that the learned trial Court ought to have

issued bailable warrant for evidence of prosecution

witnesses.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for

accused/respondent submits that the trial Court has not

committed any error of law in acquitting the respondent.

6. Heard learned State counsel and perused the material

available on record.

7. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under

Section 258 Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though the

case had been posted for hearing on various dates and

summons had been issued to the witnesses for all the

hearings, the witnesses were not produced on any of the

hearing dates and, in spite of a notice issued that the

case would be disposed of without examining the

witnesses if they are not produced, the prosecution did

not choose to let in any evidence and as such, the

Magistrate found that the prosecution had no evidence

to let in.

8. This Court might note here that the offence with which

the respondent-accused has been charged is offence

under Section 34(1)(A) of the Excise Act, and the

prosecution was launched nearly 01 year ago before the

Court below and 10 years before this High Court.

Furthermore, the prosecution had not, in spite of

notices/summons, attempted to produce the witnesses

and in fact were quite non-cooperative in their attitude.

9. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not

want to interfere with that acquittal at this length of time

and hence dismissed the appeal at the admission stage

itself.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

pekde