Rajendra Singh vs State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand)

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in criminal appeal No. 5 of 1998, whereby the said court has sentenced the revisionist rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/

Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

Brief facts, of the case, are that tn the intervening night of 5/6.03.1985, police party was on its patrol duty in Narendra Nagar, when it intercepted car bearing registration No. UGA 1476, between Agrakhal and Fakot. On checking, it was found the six bags containing illicit liquor in bottles weighing 288 pounds were recovered. Co-accused Sushil Kumar was arrested at the spot while the revisionist escaped from the car. A case crime No. 13 of 1985, was registered at Police Station Narendra Nagar against co-accused Sushil Kumar and the revisionist Rajendra Singh. At the time of recovery of the liquor recovery memorandum (Ex. A1) was prepared by the police party headed by S.I. G.L. Arya, Constable Bhram pal Singh, Constable Mahesh Chand, Constable Chandu lal (P.W.3), and Driver Uday Singh. On the basis of the recover,y memo check report (Ex. A2) was prepared by the police, and Station Officer G.B. Pandey (P.W.4) investigated the crime. P.W.1 V.K. Singh, Excise Inspector, gave his report (Ex. A1) after doing the chemical tests with the opinion that the recovered liquid was illicit liquor. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Rajendra Singh (revisionist), and co-accused Sushil Kumar, and one Vinod Kumar. Accused Vinod Kumar died during trial, and his case stood abated.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 V.K. Singh, Excise Inspector, P.W.2 Head Constable Narendra Singh, P.W.3 Constable Chandu Lal, and P.W.4 Station Officer G.B. Pandey, were examined. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, vide its order dated 03.07.1988, passed in criminal case No. 1105 of 1992, held accused Rajendra Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable u/s 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 03.07.1988, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, in criminal case No. 1105 of 1992, criminal appeal No. 5 of 1998, was filed by the convict Rajendra Singh, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.10.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. Hence this revision.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the liquor said to have been recovered was not sent to Forensic Laboratory for the chemical analysis, as such conviction recorded by the courts below is erroneous in law. From the papers on record, it appears that the sample of the liquor said to have been recovered was sent for analysis to Excise Inspector, who conducted litmus test, hydrometry test, alcohol test, and other tests before concluding that the illicit liquor was made from sprit.

As far as the recovery of the liquor from the car, in which the co-accused Sushil Kumar was arrested from the spot, and accused Rajendra Singh succeeded in escaping from the car, the same is sufficiently proved from the statement of P.W.3 Chandu Lal. The quantity said to have been recovered could not have been planted by the police, nor the police had any enmity with the revisionist.

Having gone through the entire record of the case, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial court and appellate court so far as the conviction of the revisionist u/s 60 U.P, Excise Act, 1910, is concerned. On the point of sentence, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, and the bail order passed by this Court shows that the revisionist has been in jail for about two weeks.

In the above circumstances, and for the reasons as discussed above, this revision is dismissed, to the extent the conviction is recorded by the courts below against the revisionist u/s 60 U.P. Excise Act, 1910. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to period already undergone by the revisionist provided he deposits fine of ` 5,000/-as directed by the trial court, and affirmed by the lower appellate court with a period of one month from today before the trial court. Let a copy of this judgment be sent alongwith lower court record to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal.