Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja @ Pramod Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
1 CRR-882-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 882 of 2006
RAJA @ PRAMOD SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Sen - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
As per the office report dated 03.07.2025 received from the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Satna, the applicant No.4-Pawan Kumar has died on
01.05.2025, hence the revision is abated as far as it relates to applicant No.4-
Pawan Kumar.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, revision
is heard finally at motion hearing stage.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants under
Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being
aggrieved with the order dated 22.05.2006 passed in Cr.A.No.275/2003 by
the First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna whereby the order of conviction
and sentence dated 26.06.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.530/2003 by
Judicial Magistrate First Class has been affirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
2 CRR-882-2006
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court has not considered the fact that the Investigating
Officer, Shahzad Singh (PW-7) had investigated whole case. He was the
person who had seized the contraband from the possession of the applicants,
arrested the applicants and on returning to Police Station, lodged the FIR
(Exhibit-P/9). But in the FIR, nowhere it has not been mentioned that he was
accompanied by the Ravindra Nath Tiwari (PW-4) and Bahadur Singh (PW-
5) and from where he had got independent witnesses, Vijay Singh (PW-1)
and Chandrabhan Singh (PW-2). With the charge-sheet no copy of general
diary (Rojnamcha), which shows entry of departure from police station on
patrolling duty has not been submitted. The independent witnesses have not
supported the case. They have taken a specific defence that there was a
dispute with the concerned police officer Shahzad Singh (PW-7) who has
investigated whole case as the applicant No.1-Raja Sahu has filed a
complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Satna on 22.03.2002 and he
has also annexed copy of the bill that was given to S.H.O. Majhagwan as a
rent of tent house. The applicant has specifically stated that the rent of the
tent was pending and frequently the police officer Shahzad Singh (PW-7)
was demanding his jeep for personal use and when he denied, Shahzad Singh
(PW-7) had threatened him to falsely implicate in the case and seize his jeep
and the trial Court has not taken into consideration all these facts. The
defence witnesses that is supported by the independent witnesses and from
the very beginning, he had taken defence in the cross-examination of the
Police Officer, Ravindra Nath Tiwari (PW-4) and Bahadur Singh (PW-5) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
3 CRR-882-2006
he has also asked regarding his defence to Investigating Officer, though he
has denied. Thus, the applicants have probablised their defence but it was not
considered.
5. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has
relied on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal
Revision No.1239/2023 (Dhyan Singh and another vs. State of M.P. ) and the
judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of
Punjab, reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court particularly in para Nos.20 and
25 of the judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order
and submitted that the defence raised by the applicants is false and
fabricated. The Investigating Officer and other police witnesses have clearly
denied the suggestion. No defence is probablised, hence the trial Court and
Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants.
7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
8. In this case, independent witnesses Vijay Singh (PW-1) and
Chandrasbhan Singh (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case and
specifically stated that in their presence, no illicit liquor was recovered from
the applicants and they are not also acquainted with the applicants.
9. Police Officer, Ravindra Nath Tiwari (PW-4) and Bahadur Singh
(PW-5) have stated that on 28.03.2002, in the morning, when they were
returning after patrolling duty, a white colour marshal jeep was being driven
by the applicant- Raja Sahu. When the vehicle was stopped by the S.H.O.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
4 CRR-882-2006
Shazad Singh (PW-7), in checking it was found that it was having 10 carton
of foreign liquor and the accused persons were in the vehicle. On
interrogation, the applicant- Raja Sahu had told them that they have
purchased it from Panna but no document or permit was shown by the
applicant. The same fact has been stated by Bhadur Singh (PW-5).
10. In cross-examination of these witnesses, Ravindra Nath Tiwari
(PW-4) had admitted that it is right to say that younger brother of the
applicant-Raja Sahu is having a shop of Tent House and Raja Bhaiya had
two mini trucks and a marshal jeep. In Police Station, the meeting of Peace
Committee was being organized and sometimes the Manas Path also took
place. During that, the tent and other articles were called from the Tent
House of Raja Bhaiya but he could not clearly stated that the tent and other
articles were called from his Tent House or not and denied that the jeep of
Raja Bhaiya was called by the concerned police officer and bill of Tent
House was given to S.H.O. dated 21.02.2002 of Rs.1,650/- and Rs.850/- . He
has also denied that a dispute had taken place and Raja Bhaiya filed a
complaint to Superintendent of Police, Satna and due to this reason, the
applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.
11. Witness, Bahadur Singh (PW-5) has stated that when the police
party went for patrolling duty usually they entered this fact in the general
diary/Rojnamcha and when they return, the entry is made in that. This
witness has also admitted that from the spot 100.50 yards distance, there was
Tent House of the Raja Bhaiya and Raja Bhaiya was also having mini trucks
but denied the suggestion that tent from Raja Bhiaya was called for Manas
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
5 CRR-882-2006
Path in the police station.
12. From the statement of Shahzad Singh (PW-7) who supported
FIR in his statement, it is clear that he has seized the contraband, arrested the
applicant and lodged the FIR and after that investigated the whole case.
13. In the cross examination of this witness, it was also specifically
asked that when they went on patrolling duty, they make entry in the general
diary and he has not submitted the general diary along with charge-sheet and
denied suggestion that he has not departed on patrolling duty, hence he has
not submitted entry of general diary. This witness also admitted the fact that
applicant is having Tent House near Police Station. He is also having marshal
jeep but had stated ignorance that he is having mini trucks. He had admitted
that Manas Path was organized in the Mandir but had denied that tent and
other articles were called from the applicant's Tent House and denied that the
applicant had submitted bills of Rs.1,660/- and Rs.820/-. He had denied the
suggestion that the marshal jeep was called for personal use and when he
demanded rent and the price of diesel used in the vehicle, this witness
threatened him.
14. Thus, it is clear that from all the three police witnesses, this fact
has been put that there was dispute with the investigating officer regarding
the supply of tent and other articles and not payment of that bill and
investigating officer has demanded the vehicle for personal use and when the
applicant- Raja Sahu demanded money for diesel used in the vehicle, the
dispute had taken place and the complaint was filed on 22.03.2002 to
Superintendent of Police, Satna and this fact has been supported by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
6 CRR-882-2006
Ramkishore Soni (DW-1), Mahesh Prasad Soni (DW-2) and Raja Bhaiya
(DW-3) himself has examined before the Court. In the cross-examination of
these witnesses, nothing has been found that these witnesses are stating false.
15. In this circumstance, the statement of Investigating Officer have
to be scrutinized from minutely and on that basis, it was required to show his
impartiality and transparency that the Investigating Officer would have
submitted the Rojnamcha entry/general diary entry. It was also required that
in the FIR, he would have marked the name of the accompanying members
of police force with whom he went on patrolling duty and after search and
seizure, it was required for him to hand over the investigation to other police
officers but this was not done in this case.
16. The Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra) in Para-20 has
held as under:-
"20. In the nature of the controversy, it would be useful
to also notice the view taken by different High Courts
on the issue. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Atul
Sharma 2015 (2) shimLC 693 (Crl. Appeal No. 246 of
2008, decided on 28.02.2015). under the NDPS Act, it
was observed as follows:
"10.8 In present case it is proved on record
that complainant is SI Bahadur Singh as per
FIR Ext.PW12/A and it is proved on record
that entire investigation has been conducted
by complainant himself and there is no
evidence on record in order to prove that
investigation was handed over to some other
independent Investigating Officer. It is not
the case of prosecution that no other
independent Investigating Officer was
available to conduct impartial investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
7 CRR-882-2006
We are of the opinion that conducting entire
investigation i.e. preparation of seizure
memo, site plan, recording statements of
witnesses by complainant himself has caused
miscarriage of justice to accused qua fair
investigation"
17. In the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Dhyan Singh and another (supra) in Para-23 and 24 held as under:-
"23. The discussion as above reveals that Shri
Vishwabandhu Choudhary conducted the whole
proceedings in this case i.e. from receiving the
information till the filing of report and he did not allow
any other person take the task of investigation of crime
or examination of seized items. His testimony has found
no corroboration from independent witnesses and
inexplainably the members of raiding party have also
not been produced as witnesses. The revenue record
does not have any corroborative value. The seized item
was not deposited timely with responsible authority and
there was in excusable absence of seizure chit bearing
the signatures on the items produced before the Court.
24. It has already been discussed that there is
presumptive clause under Section 43 of M.P. Excise
Act. Hence, the direction given in the Mohanlal (Supra)
case is applicable here. Accordingly, in the light of
these infirmities and inconsistencies, the prosecution
case is found to be shrouded with grave suspicion.
Hence, guided by the principles laid down in Mohanlal
(Supra) case, this revision is allowed and applicants are
acquitted from the charges of Section 34(2) M.P. Excise
Act."
18. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that except the police
officer no independent witness has supported the case and to support his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30051
8 CRR-882-2006
contention, the Investigating Officer has not filed the relevant entry of the
Rojnamcha/General Diary and handed over investigation to other Police
Officers to demonstrate his impartiality and transparency. Hence, in these
circumstances, only on the basis of statements of Police Officer, it is not safe
to convict the applicants and the trial Court and the Appellate Court have
committed illegality in convicting the applicants on statement of police
officer.
19. The revision is allowed.
20. The applicants are acquitted from the charges under Section
34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
21. If the applicants are not required in any other case, they shall be
released forthwith.
22. If any fine amount deposited by the applicants be refunded to
them
23. Let the case property be disposed off as per the order of the trial
Court.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
