Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar @ Billu And Ors. vs State on 9 March, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioners when the matter is called out. The petition can be disposed of on perusal of the record of the case.
2.This revision petition has been preferred against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed in appeal upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act. In the appeal the sentence of the appellants were reduced to 3 months each from six months each and fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The revision has been preferred on the ground that the the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and has not taken care of material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses into account. It is pleaded that recovery of 13 card board boxes containing 24 half bottles of liquor was mentioned in the charge framed against the petitioners. Only 52 samples were taken and sent to laboratory for analysis so conviction was bad. It is also submitted that the petitioners had not violated the notification issued by the Delhi Administration under Punjab Excise Act.
3. It is settled law that in a revision petition, the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if sitting in appeal and come to a different conclusion . Order of lower court cannot be set aside lightly. The court while dealing with the revision petition can only look into the aspect if a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place or if the judgment was not based on the evidence on record. Revision Court can interfere only if findings of lower court are perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from any error of law.
4. In the present case the petitioners were found in the taxi and from the back seat of car two cardboard boxes were recovered and from the diggy 11 cardboard boxes of country made liquor were recovered. The trial court came to the conclusion that accused persons have committed offence under Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act. Accused persons were convicted and sentenced to six months S.I with fine of Rs.2000/- each.
5.In appeal the entire evidence was again appreciated by the appellate court and it was concluded that the conviction awarded by the trial court was in order. However, the sentence was reduced from 6 months to 3 months.
6. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge which has been given after analyzing and appreciating the entire evidence which has come on record. The contention of the petitioners that samples should have been drawn from each bottle of liquor recovered is untenable. If similar liquor bottles were there in the cardboard boxes, it was not necessary for the prosecution to take samples from each bottles. I find no force in the contention. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
7. The bail bond of the accused are cancelled. Accused are directed to surrender immediately before CMM/MM concerned to undergo remaining sentence.
8. In case they fails to surrender, the CMM /ACMM/ MM concerned shall issue warrant of their arrest and send them to judicial custody to undergo for remaining period of sentence.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the ACMM/MM concerned for taking necessary action.
