Latif Khan and Another vs The State of Rajasthan

Nisha Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 95/2011, where the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced, as under:--

U/s. 14 read with Section 19 read with Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act:--

3 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, further one month additional simple imprisonment to each accused petitioners.

The short facts of the case are that on 12/01/2011, the Assistant Director, Excise lodged a written report against the present petitioners on which fir No. 11/2010 has been registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed and on conclusion of the trial, present petitioners have been convicted and sentenced, as referred above. Appeal has been dismissed, hence, this revision petition.

The contention of the present petitioners is that they have been implicated falsely. Document u/s 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act has been prepared, after the seizure. Investigating Officer is the same person, who has seized the contraband. No independent witness has supported the prosecution story and the present petitioners have suffered two and half years imprisonment, hence, a liberal attitude be taken.

Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the conviction and minimum sentence is provided u/s 19 /54, hence, no interference is needed in conviction and the sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as relevant material available on record.

P.W. 1, Dharmveer Singh is the seizure officer who has supported the prosecution story that on Roopangarh Tiraha, he has received the source information, which was reduced in writing as Ex.P.1. Thereafter, he reached Kishangarh Toll Naka where truck No. R.J. 19 G 7505 was intercepted. Latif was the driver, Babukhan was the Khalasi and on search, it was found that 10800 bottles of liquor were transporting. This fact has been further corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2, Harendra Singh & P.W. 3 Ramgopal. It is true that no independent witness has been produced to support the prosecution case, but there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1, Dharamveer Singh, which was further supported by the testimony of P.W. 2 Harendra Singh and P.W. 3 Ramgopal. The learned public prosecutor has relied upon the judgment rendered in Dharampal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, In the light of above, the contention of the present petitioner is not sustainable.

The other contention of the petitioners is that document u/s 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act has been prepared after the seizure, but this arguments contains no basis as nothing has been asked to the P.W. 1 Dharamveer in his cross-examination in this regard. Ex.P.1 has been prepared at Roopangarh Choraha and Dharamveer Singh stated that after preparation of Ex.P.1, he reached at Kishangarh Toll Naka and further in his statement, he has stated that Ex.P.1 was prepared at 9.05 a.m. and thereafter he reached at the spot and at about 10 a.m. the truck was intercepted, hence, the argument of the learned counsel in this regard is un-acceptable.

Further more, the other contention of the present petitioners is that Investigating Officer is the seizure officer. Be that may be the case, it will not vitiate the whole proceeding. Under the Rajasthan Excise Act for the offence u/s 19 /54, only the possession is sufficient to catch hold of a offender and with the seizure of the excisable article, the offence is complete. Thereafter only formal investigation remains and a formal investigation has been conducted by seizure officer. There seems to be no infirmity and present petitioners have not indicated any fact that the Seizure Officer was having any enmity towards the present petitioners or he has in any manner misuse his authority, hence, in view of the above, this objection is also not maintainable.

The other very interesting argument has been lodged by the counsel for the petitioners that the truck was handed over to them by stating that it contains Aahar. Prosecution evidence established that 10800 bottles were transported in the vehicle, hence, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be accepted that the present petitioners, who are the driver and khalasi of the vehicle, were not knowing about the fact that what they are carrying in the truck. Both the courts below have considered the material available on record, appreciated the evidence and arrived at a reasonable and well founded conclusion. There is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the court below and no interference is needed.

The other contention of the present petitioners is that they have suffered already two and half years imprisonment and a liberal attitude be taken in favour of them. Section 19 /54 clearly provides minimum sentence if liquor found at the time of the detection more than 50 bulk liter. The seized liquor is admittedly in 900 cartons total 10800 bottles, hence, looking to the recovery of heavy quantity of the liquor, present petitioners deserve no sympathy and the learned court below has rightly awarded the sentence which is commensurate to the offence. In view of above, the revision petition is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.