Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nizamuddin @ Nizzu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17941
1 CRR-1942-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1942 of 2025
NIZAMUDDIN @ NIZZU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vasant Zokarkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State.
Heard on: 04.07.2025
Delivered on: 14.07.2025
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, read with Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, is
preferred challenging the legality of order dated 28.03.2025 in Criminal
Appeal No.46/2025 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, arising out
of judgment dated 12.03.2025 in RCT No.3409/2021 by CJM, Ujjain,
whereby the conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 49-A of MP
Excise Act, 1915 sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.1.00 lakh with
default stipulation of one month Additional SI has been affirmed.
02. The facts in brief is that the applicant/accused was prosecuted
under Section 49-A of MP Excise Act, 1915, for possessing five litres of
spurious liquor which is not fit for human consumption. The prosecution has
initiated action on the basis of FIR lodged at Police-Station-Neelganga,
Ujjain as Crime No.711/2021.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17941
2 CRR-1942-2025
03. As per prosecution, on the information of informant, the
applicant/accused was found with plastic white cane behind the wall of
garbage plant within the jurisdiction of Police-Station - Neelganga, Ujjain at
23.15 am of 02.11.2021 by the police team comprising of ASI Radhelal
Ninama, Police Constable Anil Pancholi No.1352 and Ankit Chouhan
No.1300 along with Wasim Khan and Tanveer Khan, a cane was seized vide
Ex.P/1, the applicant/accused was arrested vide Ex.P/2, the FIR was lodged
as Ex.P/3, the liquor was separated and was sent to the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, for chemical examination and report of RFSL Indore is
Ex.P/1 reported that said liquor is unfit for human consumption.
04. The applicant was put to trial and he pleaded innocence and the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses namely; Wasim Khan
(PW/1), Constable Ankit (PW/2), Assistant Sub-Inspector Radhelal Ninama
(PW/3), Head Constable Sunil Kumar (PW/4).
05. In examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code,
the applicant/accused either denied or expressed ignorance regarding all the
facts and circumstances appeared against him in the prosecution evidence.
06. Appreciating the evidence, the trial court has convicted and
sentenced the applicant/accused and the appellate court has affirmed the
conviction and sentence, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
07. Challenging the legality of impugned judgment of the trial court
as well as first appellate court, this criminal revision has been preferred by
the applicant on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that the
alleged spurious liquor was recovered from the present applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17941
3 CRR-1942-2025
08. Wasim Khan (PW/1) has not supported the seizure as well as
arrest of the applicant/accused and the documents could not be proved by the
witnesses.
09. The prosecution has failed to adduce the corroborative and
trustworthy evidence to connect the applicant/accused with the commission
of alleged offence. Both the courts below did not extend the benefit of doubt
as the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the revision by
submitting that no illegality has been pointed out by the prosecution.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Apart from the official witnesses, Wasim Khan (PW/1) has been
examined by the prosecution and he had supported the prosecution version as
divulged by the Police Constable Ankit (PW/2), Head Constable Sunil
Kumar (PW/4) and Assistant Sub-Inspector Radhelal Ninama (PW/3).
13. The cross-examination of witness Wasim Khan (PW/1) is
expanded in paragraphs 4 and 5 i.e. paragraph no.3 to 7. There are minor
variations but nothing substantive has been brought out in their cross-
examination to demonstrate the prosecution version. There is nothing in
which the cross-examination of Constable Ankit Verma and Assistant Sub-
Inspector Radhelal Ninama to falsely implicate the applicant. No procedural
infirmity has been pointed out as per witness Radhelal Ninama (PW/3) in
para 10 of the judgment. In para 10 of the judgment, witness Radhelal
Ninama (PW/3) is of no consequence, as the time of 22.47 in Claim No.3(a)
of Ex.P/3 is related to the time when intimation of informant (Mukhbir) was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17941
4 CRR-1942-2025
received and the time after the seizure on 23.08.2015 vide Ex.P/1. The time
of 23.53 as mentioned in Claim No.3(b) of FIR Ex.P/3.
14. The report Ex.P/11 that illicit liquor was found in possession of
the applicant is unfit for human consumption as the same contains toxic
substances. Accordingly, the trial court as well as first appellate court has
committed no illegality in convicting the applicant/accused under the
provisions of Section 49-A of MP Excise Act, 1915. In Section 49-A of MP
Excise Act, 1915, the minimum imprisonment is of six months which may
extent up-to six years and the minimum fine is of Rs.1.00 lakh. The record
discloses that the present applicant is the accused for committing the
aforementioned offence and therefore the trial court and first appellate court
has recorded the reason for not extending the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
15. Considering the principle of proportionality, the imposed
sentence also does not need any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this
criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Arun
