Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Lalita Kanjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 Criminal Revision No.808/2022
         Smt. Lalita Kanjar Vs. State of M.P. and another

Gwalior, Dated:31/03/2022

      Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for applicant.

      Shri Sushant Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for respondents/State.

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 24/2/2022 passed

by Principal Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Appeal No.55/2021,

by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and

sentence dated 8/10/2021 passed by JMFC, Datia in Criminal Case

No.446/2020 has been affirmed.

2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section

34 (1) of the MP Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs.1,500/- with default

rigorous imprisonment of one month.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according

to the prosecution case, on 18/6/2020 an information was received

that one lady is selling liquor near Sonagir Railway Station by the

side of the bridge and accordingly, Brijesh Kumar Mishra, ASI went

to the spot and found that one lady was sitting alongwith a plastic

cane. The Investigating Officer checked the cane and found that it

was containing 25 liters of country made liquor. The lady disclosed

her name as Lalita Kanjar (applicant). The applicant was not having

any licence to sell the liquor. Accordingly, the liquor was seized. The

applicant was arrested. The FIR was lodged in Crime No.33/2020.

The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.808/2022 Smt. Lalita Kanjar Vs. State of M.P. and another

4. The Trial Court by order dated 20/1/2021 read over the

substance of acquisition.

5. The applicant abjured her guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution examined Prakash (PW-1), Bhanwar Singh

(PW-2), Brijesh Mishra (PW-3) and K.L. Bhagora (PW-4).

7. The applicant did not examine any witness in her defence.

8. The Trial Court by order dated 8/10/2021 convicted the

applicant for offence under Section 34 (1) of the MP Excise Act and

sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months and

a fine of Rs.1,500/- with default rigorous imprisonment of one

month.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the

Court below, the applicant preferred a revision, which too has been

dismissed by the impugned judgment.

10. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court

below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there are

material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the

witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the

applicant beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the

applicant is already in jail from the date of judgment passed by the

Appellate Court, i.e.24/2/2022 and she has already undergone more

than one month and ten days and, therefore, the applicant may be

sentenced to the period already undergone by her.

11. Per contra, the prayer for reducing the sentence is vehemently

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.808/2022 Smt. Lalita Kanjar Vs. State of M.P. and another

opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is clear

from the criminal history, Ex.P/6, that as many as 15 criminal cases

under Section 34 of M.P. Excise Act were registered against the

applicant. Thus, it is clear that she is a habitual offender and thus, the

sentence of three months awarded by the Trial Court may not be

reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

13. It is well established principle of law that this Court in exercise

of power under Section 397, 401 of CrPC cannot interfere with the

concurrent findings of facts unless and until they are found to be

perverse or contrary to record. Even the erroneous findings of facts

cannot be corrected by this Court while exercising the power under

Section 397, 401 of CrPC.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh

Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 has held as under:

"16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re- analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.

17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH , (2008) 14 SCC 457], it is a well- established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is therefore, in the negative."

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.808/2022 Smt. Lalita Kanjar Vs. State of M.P. and another

15. Counsel for the applicant could not point out any perversity in

the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Court below.

16. In absence of any legal infirmity, this Court is of the

considered opinion that this Court while exercising the power under

Section 397, 401 of CrPC cannot interfere with the concurrent

findings of facts. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under

Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act is hereby affirmed.

17. So far as the prayer for reduction of the sentence to the period

already undergone by the applicant is concerned, the prosecution has

produced criminal record of the applicant Ex. P/6, according to

which, following offences were registered:-

dz- Fkkuk      vi-dz- /kkjk       ?kVuk fnukad dkssVZ ua-       Pkkyku dzekad
                                  @LFkku                        o fnukad
1 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@10 [email protected]           [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@10         [email protected]@10
2 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@14 [email protected]           [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@14         [email protected]@14
3 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@15 [email protected]            [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@15         [email protected]@15
4 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@16 [email protected]             [email protected] fn-
                                               16         fn-   [email protected]@16
                                               [email protected]@16
5 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@16 [email protected]             [email protected] fn-
                                               16         fn-   [email protected]@16
                                               [email protected]@16
6 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@17 [email protected]            [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@17         [email protected]@17
7 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@18 [email protected]            [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@18         [email protected]@18
8 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@18 [email protected]            [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@18         [email protected]@18
9 flukoy [email protected] 34         vkc-,DV [email protected]@19 [email protected]            [email protected] fn-
                                               [email protected]@19         [email protected]@19

              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     Criminal Revision No.808/2022

Smt. Lalita Kanjar Vs. State of M.P. and another

10 flukoy [email protected] 34 vkc-,DV [email protected]@19 [email protected] [email protected] fn-

                                        [email protected]@19                [email protected]@19
    11 flukoy [email protected] 34 vkc-,DV [email protected]@20 [email protected]               [email protected] fn-
                                        [email protected]@20                [email protected]@20
    12 flukoy [email protected] 34 vkc-,DV [email protected]@20 [email protected]               [email protected] fn-
                                        [email protected]@20                [email protected]@20
    13 flukoy [email protected] 34 vkc-,DV [email protected]@20     &                   [email protected] fn-
                                                                [email protected]@20
    14 flukoy [email protected] 34 vkc-,DV [email protected]@20                 &       [email protected] fn-
                                                                [email protected]@20
    15 flukoy [email protected] 34 vkc-,DV [email protected]@20                 &       [email protected] fn-
                                                                [email protected]@20

18. In view of the criminal antecedents of the applicant, this Court

is of the considered opinion that no leniency can be shown so far as

the question of sentence is concerned, therefore, the sentence of

rigorous imprisonment of three months awarded by the Trial Court

does not call for any interference.

19. Ex consequenti, the judgment and sentence dated 24/2/2022

passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Appeal

No.55/2021 and the judgment and sentence dated 8/10/2021 passed

by JMFC, Datia in Criminal Case No.446/2020 are hereby affirmed.

20. The applicant is in jail. She would undergo the remaining jail

sentence.

21. The record of the Courts below be sent back immediately with