State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sukhani Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 3184 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        Acquittal Appeal No.17 of 2011

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Excise Sub-Inspector, Raigarh,
     District - Raigarh, (C.G.).


                                                                ---- Appellant
                                  Versus
  •   Sukhani Bai, W/o Mahesh Ram, aged about 38 years, R/o
      Salihadipa, P.S. Punjipathara, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, (C.G.).

                                                           ---- Respondents


      For Appellant/State      :Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate.

      For Respondent           :None.




                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
                              Order on Board


02/05/2022


  1. None present for the respondent/accused though notice served upon

      her.

  2. The appeal is admitted and heard finally.

  3. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment

      and order of acquittal dated 23/10/2009 passed by the Chief Judicial

      Magistrate, Raigarh, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1464/2008, whereby

      the Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent/accused
                                   2

  of the charge punishable under Section 34(1)(A) of the Chhattisgarh

  Excise Act.

4. Facts

of the case are that, on 27/09/2008 at about 1:00 PM, the

respondent/accused without having license, had illegally kept 10

liters country made liquor in her possession for sale. On the

information received from an informant, a raid was conducted and

the alleged liquor was seized from the possession of the respondent/

accused. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed against the respondent/accused and trial Court framed the

charges.

5. On completion of trial, vide the impugned judgment dated

23/10/2009, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the

charges framed against her. Hence, this appeal by State.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the

trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused only on the

ground for want of prosecution evidence. Learned Counsel further

submits that particulars of the offence were framed on 16/12/2008

and the matter was fixed for recording of evidence on 17/03/2009. As

no witnesses were present on 17/03/2009, the matter was again

posted for recording of evidence on 07/07/2009. On that date also,

witnesses were not present, thereafter, the matter was again posted

for the same on 23/10/2009. Since, no witnesses were present on

that date also, the trial Court closed the opportunity for production of

prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondent/accused. It is

further stated that trial Court has passed the impugned order in a

cryptic and laconic manner without appreciating the material

evidence available on record. The impugned order is absolutely bad

in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the

material evidence available on record. The trial Court has passed the

impugned order without obtaining the prosecution evidence and

without trial, therefore, it can be said that the impugned judgment

has not been passed on merits.

7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the State and perused

the material available on record of the trial Court minutely.

8. On perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that the

particulars of the offence were framed on 16/12/2008 and the matter

was fixed for recording of evidence on 17/03/2009. Thereafter, on

07/07/2009 and 23/10/2009, the matter was again fixed for recording

of evidence. There is no mentioning of the details in the order-sheets

regarding the service of summons which were issued earlier.

Virtually, on perusal of the order-sheet dated 16/12/2008, it appears

that order was passed for issuance of summons but no summons

were issued. Again on 07/07/2009, the trial Court passed the order

for issuance of summons but no summons were issued on that date

also. Suddenly, on the next date i.e. 23/10/2009, the trial Court

closed the opportunity of production of prosecution evidence on the

ground that sufficient opportunity has been given to the prosecution

and hence, passed the impugned order of acquittal.

9. On perusal of the entire order-sheets as stated above, it is clear that

the trial Court did not make serious efforts for securing the

appearance of the witnesses before it. Therefore, the matter is

remitted back to the trial Court for affording reasonable opportunity to

the prosecution for production of witnesses. Respondent/accused is

directed to remain present before the trial Court on 18/07/2022. If

the respondent/accused is not present on the said date of her

appearance, the trial Court is directed to proceed further for

appearance of the respondent/accused for trial. As the matter is

pending since 2008, the trial Court is also directed to decide the

matter as early as possible preferably within a period of six months

from the date 18/07/2022 i.e. date of appearance of the respondent/

accused before the trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent back

along with a copy of this judgment immediately.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the acquittal appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Prakash