Bal Kishan Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8378 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 12 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2016 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          BAL KISHAN JATAV S/O SHRI HINDA JATAV, AGED
                          ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR RESIDENT
                          OF OF VILLAGE DHANGA POLICE STATION KARERA,
                          SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                          (SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL AND SHRI SOORAJ BHAN LODHI, LEARNED
                          COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH TOWN
                          INSPECTOR THROUGH POLICE STATION KARERA,
                          DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI PRABHAT PATERIYA- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT- STATE)

                                This revision coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

The present revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of CrPC has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 26-04-2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2022 affirming judgment dated 30-12-2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.600224 of 2015,whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act and sentenced to undergo one year and six months RI with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/15/2023 11:39:43 AM

Prosecution story in brief is that on getting information, the Sub- Inspector Naval Singh Yadav on the alleged date of incident i.e. 29-01-2014 along with police force seized 57 liters of illicit country-made liquor from the possession of petitioner near BSNL Tower for which, he could not justify the same. On the basis of which, Crime No.56 of 2013 was registered at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for aforesaid offfence. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge-sheet and after hearing the parties as well as after marshalling the evidence of prosecution, the learned trial Court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the present petitioner for the offence under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo

one and a half year with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 30-12-2021. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 26-04-2023 dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. All the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. All witnesses were interested witnesses and only on the basis of presumption, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment. the impugned judgment is based only on the basis of evidence of police officials which is not permissible in the eyes of law. All the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The whole prosecution story is based on surmises and conjectures. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside and the petitioner deserve to be acquitted of alleged offence.

Signature Not Verified On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent State supported the Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/15/2023 11:39:43 AM

impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, although it appears that the learned Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned judgments but looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would meet if by affirming the impugned judgments, the jail sentence awarded by trial Court and affirmed by lower appellate Court may be reduced from one and a half year to one year.

Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed and by affirming the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below, the jail sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to one year from one and half year with the fine amount, as awarded by trial Court.

CC as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/15/2023 11:39:43 AM