Jai Kumar Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 10161 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jai Kumar Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025

                                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE

              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
                     ON THE 13TH OCTOBER, 2025

                     CRIMINAL REVISION NO.4214 OF 2025

                                 JAY KUMAR KURMI.
                                        Vs.
                             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Appearance:

  Shri Aseem Kumar Dixit- Advocate for the petitioner.
  Shri Somesh Gupta- Panel Lawyer for the State.

                                        ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is

heard finally.

2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of

BNSS, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed by

the Sessions Judge, Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.81/2025

arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.04.2025 passed by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar District Sagar (M.P.) in RCT No.314/2025

whereby the petitioner/accused has been convicted under Section 34(2) of MP

Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years with fine of

Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulations.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 07-10-2020 Smt.Manjusha

Soni (PW-9), who was posted as Excise Sub-Inspector at police Excise Circle,

Rehli, District Sagar received an information from the informant to the effect that

illegal liquor had been stored in the house of the petitioner/accused. On the basis of

such information, she reached in village Harra Mauja, Police Station Garhakota,

District Sagar. Thereafter she conducted a search of the house of the

pettiioner/accused at about 3:10 PM. In search of house of the petitioner/accused,

290 cartons of country made liquor were found in a room, for which the

petitioner/accused had no licence. Each carton contained 50 quarter bottles and

each quarter bottle was filled with 180 ml country made liquor. Total 2610 bulk

liters country made liquor was seized from house of the petitioner/accused vide

seizure memo Ex.P/4. Thereafter Excise Sub-Inspector (PW-9) prepared Spot Map

Ex.P/11 and petitioner/accused was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.P/5 and co-

accused Neeraj Singh Thakur was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.P/9. On

interrogation, the petitioner/accused disclosed that the liquor got kept in his house

by co-accused Neeraj Singh Thakur and Munna Kurmi.

4. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P/15) bearing Crime No.111/2020 under

Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act, 1915 was registered against the accused

persons at the Excise Circle, Rehli, District Sagar. During the investigation,

statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. After completion of

investigation, a final report was filed before the trial Court.

5. At trial, the petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false

implication. While considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court

convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act and

sentenced as mentioned above. On preferring appeal against the same, the learned

appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that there is no

legal evidence available on record against the petitioner-accused. It is further

submitted that the learned courts below have failed to consider the fact that the

independent witnesses Chhakkilal (PW-2), Satyanarayan (PW-4), Pramod Sen

(PW-5), Shivraj Singh (PW-6) and Raghvendra (PW-7) have not supported the

prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt, therefore, the petitioner/accused deserves to be acquitted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the

judgments of the learned Courts below are based on legal evidence adduced before

the trial Court. The minor discrepancies appeared in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses are not material. It is further submitted that the evidence

adduced against the petitioner/accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further,

looking to the nature of evidence, the petitioner/accused has been rightly convicted

on the fulcrum of evidence adduced before the trial Court and thus the revision

deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Prosecution witnesses namely Satyanarayan (PW-4), Pramod Sen

(PW-5), Shivraj Singh (PW-6) and Raghvendra (PW-7) have not supported the

prosecution case. These witnesses have turned hostile, but this fact alone does not

affect the prosecution case in its entirety. The key witness Excise Sub-Inspector

Manjusha Soni (PW-9) has categorically stated about the seizure of illegal liquor

from the possession of petitioner/accused. She has also stated about the documents

prepared during the investigation and examination of the seized liquor. Excise Sub-

Inspector Roshni Ureti (PW-1), Sub Inspector Shailendra (PW-3), Ranjit Tiwari

(PW-8) and Vanshidhar (PW-10) have also supported the prosecution version.

10. The learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court has

appreciated the evidence in detail. The learned appellate Court while appreciating

the evidence of Excise Sub-Inspector Manjusha Soni (PW-9) has placed reliance on

the legal preposition laid down in the various judgments cited in the impugned

order. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate

Court is based on the legal evidence available on record.

11. In Johar and Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1165 it

has been opined that if the order of the trial Court not found to be passed without

considering relevant evidence or passed by considering irrelevant evidence,

interference by entering into merits and re-appreciating entire evidence would be

improper. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand &

Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4412 it is held that Court cannot exercise revisional power as a

second appellate power.

12. The finding of the trial Court is based on the evidence adduced on

record which is not required to be re-appreciated in detail by this Court while

exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

13. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has

successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the

petitioner/accused and therefore neither the trial Court committed any error in

convicting the petitioner/accused nor did the appellate Court commit error in

affirming the same.

14. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, for the offence under

Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act, the minimum sentence is one year imprisonment

and fine of Rs.25,000/- has been prescribed. The petitioner/accused has already

deposited the fine amount. It is evident that during trial, the petitioner/accused was

in jail for 286 days and at present he is in jail since 22.4.2025, hence he has served

the jail sentence of 451 days, which is more than prescribed minimum sentence. It

is also evident from the record as well as from the impugned judgment that there is

no criminal antecedents of the petitioner/accused. He is the first offender.

Therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the jail sentence of the

petitioner/accused is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 451 days

and the fine amount is enhanced.

15. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner/accused under Section

34(2) of MP Excise Act is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the

petitioner/accused is reduced to the period already undergone by him by enhancing

the fine amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner/accused is directed

to deposit the remaining fine amount of Rs.15,000/- within a period of 15 days

from the date of his release, failing which the petitioner/accused shall suffer four

months' simple imprisonment.

16. At present the petitioner/accused is in jail. It is directed that he be

released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

17. A copy of this order along with the record of the Courts below be

sent back.

(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY) JUDGE

MANZOOR

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, 2.5.4.20=ad2ac8e0b9d73797d7e446287ba5e706a07577c5a07e2372c fe20fcae57ca829, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AHMED JABALPUR,CID - 7057308, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=3f5abbc4d66a4fa65feffcfa77b0475b40db19901ba46a

Ansari 4686739a8406ebbe50, cn=MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2025.10.14 16:58:07 +05'30'