Uttarakhand High Court

Sri Girish Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 April, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2024
                             With
                     Bail Application No. 1 of 2024

Sri Girish Singh                                         ......Revisionist

                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                     ....Respondent

Present:
              Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate for the revisionist.
              Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

following:-

(i) Order dated 02.08.2023, passed in Criminal

Case No. 1296 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand

Vs. Girish Singh, by the court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, District

Pithoragarh ("the case"). By it, the revisionist

has been convicted under Section 60 (1) of

the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 ("the

Act") and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for a period of two years with a

fine of Rs.1,94,180/-. In default of payment

of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period

of six months and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 15.03.2024,

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2023,

Girish Singh Vs. State and another, by the

court of Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh ("the

appeal"). By it, the order passed in the case

was affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 14.07.2018

at 7:50 PM, when a search was conducted in the house of

the revisionist, 280 bottles of liquor were recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit

that the entire case is false. A search was made against the

provisions of the Act. He has referred to Sections 51, 52 and

53 of the Act to argue that the recovery memo does not

reveal as to when the Excise Department Officers received

information and when they proceed. It is argued that it has

not been recorded that the Excise Department Officers had