[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Basant Suryawanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026

                                                           1




          Digitally
          signed by
                                                                                    2026:CGHC:16885
PRAKASH
KUMAR
          PRAKASH
          KUMAR
          Date:
                                                                                          NAFR
          2026.04.15
          16:35:20
          +0530                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                             CRR No. 833 of 2016
                       Basant Suryawanshi S/o Gendram Suryawanshi, Aged About 31 Years,
                       R/o Village - Awaspara, Newara Police Station - Kota, Civil and
                       Revenue District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                     ... Applicant
                                                         versus
                       State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Excise Circle
                       Takhatpur (Wrongly Mentioned Through The District Magistrate
                       Bilaspur) Civil and Revenue District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                  ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board 13/04/2026

1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is

directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 24.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2016 by the

5th Additional Sessions Judge, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby

judgment dated 28.11.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case

No.896/2013 has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court

wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 34(2) of

the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced R.I. for 1 year &

fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for

6 months.

2. According to the prosecution, on 31.12.2012, during a special

mission against illegal liquor, Ajay Dhurve (PW-4), Excise Sub-

Inspector, and other staff were on patrolling near Radhika Water

Park on the Bilaspur-Kota main road. At that time, one accused

person was seen riding an L.M.L. Freedom motorcycle towards

Nevra. He was signaled to stop the vehicle, upon which he parked

the motorcycle and fled towards the adjoining fields near the water

park. The officials chased the accused/applicant and made efforts

to apprehend him; however, he managed to escape from the spot.

Thereafter, in the presence of witnesses, the said vehicle was

searched. Upon search, liquor was recovered as per the seizure

memo (Ex.P-1). Based on the vehicle and the description

(appearance) of the accused, local witnesses identified the

accused as Basant Suryavanshi. As the accused was found to be

in possession of more than 5 liters of liquor (48 quarters of country

made liquor), an offence under Sections 34(1)(a)(2) and 59(a) of

the Excise Act was registered against him, and investigation was

initiated. Subsequently, on the basis of secret information, on

24.03.2013 vide arrest memo (Ex.P-9), applicant - Basant

Suryavanshi was arrested.

3. After completion of investigation, complaint was filed before the

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Bilaspur. The applicant

abjured the 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 accused-applicant. The

said judgment was challenged by the accused in criminal appeal,

however, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 24.08.2016

affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the

evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and

sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further

submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the

statements of the prosecution witnesses and their statements do

not corroborate with each other, this apart, the seizure witnesses

have turned hostile. It is further contended that there is no

evidence available on record which could show that the seized

property was kept in "sealed" condition nor sample seal is affixed

in the seizure memo. He further submitted that no test

identification has been conducted by the police. As such, the

prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable

doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant

that applicant be acquitted from the offence leveled against him.

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. Lastly, he submits

that the fine amount has already been deposited before the trial

Court by the Applicant.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the

impugned judgments, submits that the learned Trial Court as well

as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the

Applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same

warranting interference by this Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties

and perused the record.

8. As per the statement of Ajay Dhurve (PW-4), Excise Sub-

Inspector, on 31.12.2012, during a patrolling conducted under the

mission against illegal liquor, he noticed a person, riding LML

Freedom motorcycle and on the basis of suspicion, he was

signaled to stop the vehicle. However, the suspect stopped the

motorcycle and fled towards the fields adjoining the Water Park.

Despite making efforts to chase and apprehend him, he

succeeded in escaping from the spot. Thereafter, Sarpanch of the

village Nevra and other witnesses were orally summoned. In their

presence, he conducted a search of himself, the staff, and the

government vehicle thereafter, he prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-

1) wherein in column 7, the names of seizure witnesses are

mentioned as Vikash Yadav, Ravindra Nishad, Pradeep Singh and

Kuldeep. This witness in his cross-examination has however,

admitted that Vikash Yadav has seen the alleged incident and rest

of the other witnesses were not present at the spot.

9. Ravindra Kumar Nisad (PW-1) in his statement has deposed that

he did not know the applicant. He further stated that before him

nothing has been seized from the applicant. As such, this witness

has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned

hostile.

10. Vikas Yadav (PW-2), in his testimony, stated that the seizure

memo was prepared in his presence. He further deposed that

while the police were chasing the accused/applicant, he was

following them on his motorcycle, and when the police stopped,

he also stopped. He further stated that the box which was seized

was not opened in his presence. Thus, on perusal of his

statement, it appears that at the time of the alleged incident, he

was following behind the police vehicle. However, as per the

seizure memo (Ex. P-1), this witness was called by the police to

the spot much after the alleged incident, and at a time when the

accused had already fled away from the spot. This apart, Ajay

Dhurve, Excise Sub-Inspector has stated that Vikas Yadav is the

eye witness of the alleged incident, however, as per the

particulars of the seizure memo (Ex-P1), this witness was called

by the police after the alleged incident.

11. Thakur Pradeep Singh Parihar (PW-3), in his statement has

deposed that on 31.12.2012, when he was going Ganiyari, police

called him near Radhika Water Park, where he saw accused

Basant Suryavanshi was standing there, and the alleged liquor

was kept in a white sack in the motorcycle. He further stated that

when he went closer, the accused ran away from there. This

witness in his cross-examination has admitted that when he

reached at the spot and was talking the police officials, at that

time, the accused was present there. On perusal of his statement,

it appears that at the time of the alleged incident, he was called by

the police at the spot, where he saw the accused standing there.

However, as per the statement of other prosecution witnesses as

mentioned above and the seizure memo (Ex. P-1), this witness

was called by the police to the spot much after the alleged

incident, and at a time when the accused had already fled away

from the spot.

12. Thus, there appears contradictions and omissions in the

statement of the witnesses whose names are mentioned in the

seizure memo (Ex.P-1) as the same is not duly corroborated with

the statement of Ajay Dhurve (PW-4). This apart, there appears

differences in the statement of Ajay Dhurve with that of the

contents of seizure memo (Ex.P-1) which itself has been prepared

by him.

13. Furthermore, as per the seizure memo (Ex. P-1), on the date of

the incident, the driver of the LML Freedom motorcycle bearing

registration No. CG-10-BA-4822, on which the alleged liquor was

being carried, had fled away from the spot. With regard to the

ownership of the seized vehicle is concerned, no document has

been placed on record which could establish that the alleged

liquor which was being seized from the motorcycle, belongs to the

accused. However, one Vijay Bahadur Singh (PW-5) has been

examined who has stated that he has sold one LML Freedom

motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10-BA-3318 to accused

Basant Suryavanshi, which is different from the motorcycle which

has been seized by the police. This apart, as per arrest memo

(Ex.P-9), accused Basant Suryavanshi was arrested by the police

on 24.03.2013 i.e. about three months of the alleged incident. As

such, police ought to have conducted test identification parade of

the accused, but the police has failed to do so.

14. Seizure memo (Ex.P-1) also does not transpire that after seizure

of liquor, no seal was affixed and that where was the seized liquor

or the alleged samples kept in safe custody. There was no sample

seal affixed and it was also not proved by the prosecution that

signature of the witnesses has been obtained only after the seized

article is sealed and if the seized article could have been sealed,

then sample seal would have certainly been there but, there was

no sample seal affixed on it.

15. 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. This apart, the provisions of Section 57

(a) of the Excise Act have also not been complied with by the

prosecution.

16. 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 said Section of the Act.

11. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution, the 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."

17. By applying the decision to the facts of the present case, and

considering the material facts as discussed above, this Court is of

the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the

applicant under Section 34 (2) 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. Accordingly, the

conviction of the applicant under Section 34 (2) of the C.G. Excise

Act and the sentence awarded thereunder is hereby set aside

extending him benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the aforesaid

charge. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.

18. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The applicant is reported to