Prakash Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 March, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Prakash Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 March, 2025

                                                          1




                                                                                        NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            CRR No. 694 of 2012
             Prakash Sahu S/o Koushal Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kuthrel, Police
             Station Anda, Tahsil And Distt. Durg C.G.,                           ... Applicant
Digitally
signed by                                           versus
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA       State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Anda, Distt. Durg C.G.,
Date:
2025.03.05                                                                       ... Respondent

10:29:15
+0530
For Applicant : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate.

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board
04/03/2025
Heard.

1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2012 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.26/2011 by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg,

Dist. Durg (C.G.), whereby the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed

while upholding the judgment dated 03.02.2011 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.303/2010 convicting

the applicant under Section 34(1)(d) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915

and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months and to pay fine amount of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.02.2010 at about 19:30 hours

P.W.3 R.K.Verma, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Urla, on the basis of

information from the informer that the applicant/accused was selling liquor

illegally, at village Kuthrel, he reached to the spot and seized 61 quarter
2

bottles of liquor vide Ex.P.1, which was carrying by him in his motorcycle, in

presence of P.W.1 Gajendra Chandrakar and P.W.2 Ramesh Chandrakar.

Thereafter, P.W.3 R.K.Verma went to the Police Station and lodged F.I.R.

Ex.P.3 under Crime No.19/2010. Seized article was sent for chemical

examination and it was opined to be country made liquor by P.W. 4 C.S.

Churendra, Excise Sub-Inspector and his report is Ex.P.5.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 34 (A) was

filed before the Court of JMFC, Durg. The applicant abjured his guilt and

pleaded innocence. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant, the

prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses. Statement of the

accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant, as mentioned

in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not

challenge the conviction part of the accused under Section 34(1)(d) of the

Excise Act but challenging the sentence part, which is on higher side. He

further submits that the applicant was in jail from 03.10.2012 till 03.11.2012

and thus he remained in jail for a period of one month and one day and the

minimum punishment prescribed on the date of accident was one month,

therefore, the minimum sentence imposed upon the applicant has already

been completed by him. He further submits that there are no criminal

antecedents and he is the facing lis since February, 2011, i.e., for almost 15

years and at that time he was young boy of 18 years. Lastly, he submits that

fine amount imposed upon the applicant has already been deposited. On

these premises, he urged that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period

already undergone by him.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the revision, while

supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. He
3

further submits that the applicant/accused has been released on bail and as

per information received by him from the jail authorities, he was in jail from

03.10.2012 to 03.11.2012 and at that time, the minimum punishment

prescribed was for one month.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused

the record minutely.

8. Considering the statement of P.W.3 R.K.Verma supported by P.W.1 Gajendra

Chandrakar and P.W.2 Ramesh Chandrakar and P.W.4 C.S. Churendra,

Excise Sub-Inspector, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as

well as the appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused, which needs

no interference.

9. As regards sentence part of the applicant, considering the fact that the

applicant remained in jail for a period of one month and one day and he has

no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since February, 2011, i.e., for

almost 15 years have elapsed and that he was young boy of 18 years old at

that time, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be

met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail

sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Ordered accordingly. However, the fine amount with default sentence

imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as that of Appellate Court for the

aforesaid offence shall remain intact.

10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The applicant is reported to be

on bail and his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from

today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Records of both the

Courts be sent back to the concerned Courts along with a copy of this order

forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani