Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagendra Singh Alis Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 16TH OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.4751 OF 2025
Nagendra Singh alias Pappu.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Rohra- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aatmaram Bain- Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Heard finally.
2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
BNSS, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed by
the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Unchehra District Satna in Criminal Appeal
No.18/2025 arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
28.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Unchehra, District Satna
in Criminal Case No.183/2025 whereby the petitioner/accused has been convicted
under Section 34(1) of MP Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two
months with fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.5.2025 some country
made liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, therefore offence
under Section 34(1) of the MP Excise Act was registered against the petitioner vide
Crime No.183/2025 at Police Station Unchehra District Satna. After completion of
investigation, a final report was submitted to the trial Court.
4. At trial, the petitioner pleaded guilty of the offence under Section
34(1) of the Excise Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate has recorded the plea of
the petitioner and convicted him thereon and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same, the learned appellate Court has
affirmed the conviction and sentence while dismissing the appeal. Hence, this
revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
not represented by any Advocate before the learned trial Court. The learned trial
Court has not provided adequate legal aid to the petitioner and he was not aware of
consequence of his plea of guilt. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of
offence and quantity of seized liquor, sentence of imprisonment of two months is
unjustifiable, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be acquitted. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manish Kumar Dhawan and
another Vs. State of UT Chandigar (CRM-M-34520-2023) decided on 3.4.2024.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that
the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner on the basis of plea of guilt. He
is rightly convicted and adequately sentenced by the learned trial Court as also by
the learned appellate Court. Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Indisputably, Crime No.183/2025 under Section 34(1) of MP Excise
Act has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Unchehra District
Satna. The petitioner pleaded guilty before the learned trial Court thereon he was
convicted and sentenced. It is settled proposition of law that before a person is
convicted on a plea of guilty, the Court must be satisfied that the accused
understands the nature of allegations, admits the facts on which the charge is
founded and understands the consequence of his plea. The Court must ensure that
plea of guilt is clean, unambiguous and unqualified that accused understands the
nature of allegations. The Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Trimbak Kothula
and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 300 has opined that once the
accused admitted himself guilty, he was not to be permitted to go back and re-
agitate the issue on merits.
9. In the present case, it is revealed from the record that the petitioner
has voluntarily pleaded guilty. As per the impugned judgment, six criminal cases
have been registered against the petitioner and as per the criminal antecedents
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/State, total ten criminal cases
have been registered against the petitioner, out of which nine cases are pertaining
to the offence under Section 34 of the MP Excise Act. Under these circumstances,
it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner was unable to
understand the nature of allegation or he was unaware of consequence of his plea.
10. So far as providing of legal aid is concerned, it is revealed from the
record of the learned court below that the petitioner never prayed for the same
before the learned trial Court. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the
learned appellate Court through his counsel and he was well represented through
counsel before the learned appellate Court. Looking to the nature of offence, the
procedure followed by the learned trial Court and criminal antecedents of the
petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner was prejudice for want of legal aid
before the trial Court.
11. As per the provisions of Section 375 of Cr.P.C. (Section 416 of
BNSS), the petitioner could prefer an appeal only on the ground of extent or
legality of the sentence. On that ground the learned appellate Court has decided the
appeal vide impugned judgment 22.9.2025. Looking to the facts and circumstances
of the case, nature of the offence and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the
quantum of sentence affirmed by the learned appellate Court appears justifiable.
12. Resultantly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner/accused under
Section 34(1) of MP Excise Act are hereby affirmed.
13. 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=ad2ac8e0b9d73797d7e446287ba5e706a07577c5a07e2372
cfe20fcae57ca829, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AHMED
JABALPUR,CID - 7057308, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=3f5abbc4d66a4fa65feffcfa77b0475b40db19901ba46
Ansari
a4686739a8406ebbe50, cn=MANZOOR AHMED
Date: 2025.10.17 17:07:30 +05'30'
