Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Brishpati Singh @ Brihshpati ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2010 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2010 Jhar
Judgement Date : 9 May, 2023

Jharkhand High Court
Brishpati Singh @ Brihshpati ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2023
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   Cr. Revision No. 465 of 2009

              Brishpati Singh @ Brihshpati Singh     ---        ---   Petitioner
                                               Versus
              The State of Jharkhand                 ---        ---   Opp. Party
                                                    ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

---

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. P.K. Appu, A.P.P.

---

05 / 09.05.2023 Petitioner-Brishpati Singh @ Brihshpati Singh has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 22.05.2009 passed by Sri Binay Kumar Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Cr. Appeal No. 27/2008, whereby and wherein learned Sessions Judge, Koderma partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2008 passed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in G.R. No. 622/1999, arising out of Markachcho P.S. Case No. 56/1999, holding the petitioner guilty under section 47(a) of Excise Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for three months.

Learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment of conviction of the petitioner under section 47(a) of the Excise Act and modified the sentence, directing the petitioner to undergo R.I for six months. However, sentence regarding imposition of fine amount was not disturbed.

2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement of the Informant B.N. Singh Oraon, Officer-in-charge, Markachcho P.S., alleging therein that on 26.08.1999, house of the petitioner was raided from where 10 litres of country made liquor were recovered.

3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, on the basis of the aforesaid evidences, have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

4. From perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses, it appears that B.N. Singh Oraon (P.W-5) is the Informant of this case. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on 26.08.1999 at about 7.45 pm, house of the petitioner was raided and 10 litres of country made liquor were recovered from his house.

5. Hare Ram (P.W-1), Girija Nandan Jha (P.W-2), Gaago Gope (P.W-3) and Bhatu Badhai (P.W-4) who were the members of the raiding party, have corroborated the statement of the Informant alleging therein that on the date and time of occurrence, house of the petitioner was raided and 10 litres of country made liquor were recovered. Girija Nandan Jha (P.W-2) has stated that the seized liquor was sent for chemical examination.

6. Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, learned A.P.P, submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the statement of the Informant on the point of recovery of country made liquor from the house of the petitioner.

7. Prosecution has not adduced the report of chemical examination of the seized liquor to confirm that the contraband seized from the house of the petitioner was in fact country made liquor.

8. Merely stating that the recovered contraband smelled like liquor will not suffice. In order to prove its case under section 47(a) of the Excise Act regarding recovery of country made liquor, prosecution ought to have produced the report of chemical examination on record, failing which I am afraid that the petitioner has to be given the benefit of doubt in this case.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under section 47(a) of the Excise Act. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 22.05.2009, is set aside.

This Revision Application is allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J)

Ranjeet/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter