Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Alias Bela Alias Kushaal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29006
1 CRR-446-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 446 of 2025
NEERAJ ALIAS BELA ALIAS KUSHAAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned counsel for the petitioner (Through
VC).
Shri Jayesh Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 26.09.2025
POSTED ON : 06.10.2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is
preferred challenging the legality of judgment dated 30.09.2024 in Criminal
Appeal No.130/2024 by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First
Additional Session Judge, Mandsaur arising out of judgment dated 13.07.2024
in RCT No.130/2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur whereby the
conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 49-A of the M.P. Excise
Act, 1915 and sentenced for 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1 Lac with default
stipulation of 6 months R.I. has been affirmed.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner/accused
was found with country-made spurious liquor unfit for human consumption in
a plastic cane at 20:25 of 19.07.2023 in Suwasara at tehsil road and seizure
Exhibit-P/2 was prepared and arrest memo Exhibit-P/3 was effected. Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29006
2 CRR-446-2025
No.202/2023 was registered. Spot map Exhibit-P/13 was prepared. The seized
liquor was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory report for chemical
examination and the report Exhibit-P/18 reported that the liquor is unfit for
human consumption.
3. On charges under Section 49-A of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, the
revision petitioner/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial. To bring
home the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses including
Head Constable Manish Sharma (PW-3), Assistant Sub-Inspector - Hemant
Sharma (PW-4), Constable - Motilal (PW-5) alongwith Kishore (PW-1) and
Nepal (PW-2).
4. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, 1973, the revision
petitioner/accused either denied or expressed ignorance regarding facts and
circumstance appeared against him in prosecution evidence.
5. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced
the applicant as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment and appellate court
affirmed the conviction as well as sentence.
6. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this revision has been
preferred through legal aid on the ground that none of the independent
witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. Prior to searching the
applicant, no search panchnama was prepared by the investigating agency.
The substance kept in Article-A/3 was not sent for chemical analysis and
prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles were kept in unbreakable
condition from their seizure till the time of their analysis. There are serious
contradiction in the statement of witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the revision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29006
3 CRR-446-2025
petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The trial Court has discussed in para 10 of the judgment regarding
seal on liquor (Article-A/1). The hostility of the independent witnesses and its
effect has been discussed in para 14 to 17 by the appellate Court. No material
has been adduced before the court that official witnesses have any motive to
falsely implicate the applicant/accused. The report of FSL, Indore as Exhibit-
P/18 has reported that liquor is unfit for human consumption. Accordingly,
there is no illegality in conviction of the applicant under Section 49-A of the
M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Now, come to the quantum of sentence.
9. The offence under Section 49-A(i) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 is
punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months, but
which may extend to six years and also with fine which shall not be less than
one lakh rupees.
10. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment,
hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
