1 2026:CGHC:22458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.434 of 2016 1 - Rajendra Sahu S/o Shri Shivbagas Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Salhekala, Police Station and Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Chitannad Sahu S/o Shri Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 29 Years 3 - Ghasiyaram Sahu S/o Shri Rambharosh Yadav Aged About 63 Years 4 - Lala Sahu S/o Shri Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 21 Years Applicant Nos.2 to 4 are R/o Village Salhekala, Police Station and Tah. Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 13/05/2026 Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2016 passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.15/2016 affirming the judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the learned Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.391/2015, whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 34 (2) of Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2-2 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- - 25000/-, with default stipulations. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 12.06.2015 at about 22:00 O’clock Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh was informed by the informer that accused are illegally transporting the liquor for selling in one swaraj mazada vehicle at Atariya road. On the basis of said information Station In-charge Vinod Mandavi and his companion Staff reached at incident place at Atariya Road and where from the accused persons seized one Swaraj Mazda Vehicle bearing no.C.G.04- JB-2035 with country made plain liquor total 35 cartoon in each cartoon 180 m.l. total 1750 quarter was loaded and its total value was Rs.87500/- and one Motor Cycle was also seized. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellants. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciating the oral and documentary 3 evidence on record by the judgment dated 26.04.2016 convicted and sentenced the applicants, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Subsequently, by the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2016 the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse and therefore, is liable to be set aside. He further submits that both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence of witnesses and material available on record. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there are also material omissions and contradictions, but the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not consider the above said aspects of the matter and have recorded a wrong finding. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parvat Singh and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in CRA No.374/2020, decided on 02.03.2020 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Punitram and another vs The State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRR No.77/2016, decided on 04.10.2023. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicants guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court 4 is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 34 (2) of the Excise Act against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and PW-2 Khemraj both are independent witnesses. They only admitted their signatures on notice (Ex-P1), seizure memo (Ex-P/2), arrest memo (Ex-P/3 to P/6) but they denied any proceeding before them. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but they denied all suggestions of prosecution and stated that they went to police station for some work and upon police saying they did their signatures on documents and seizure was not made in front of them. 8. PW-6 Vinod Mandavi, Station House Officer of Police Station Khairagarh stated that on 11.06.2015 at about 22.00 O’clock he received information from informer that illegal liquor is being transported in one vehicle, upon which he along with his staff and two independent witnesses went to spot and they stopped the vehicle Swaraj Majda bearing Registration No.CG04-JB-2035 at 5 Atariya Road and interrogated the accused who identified themselves as the present applicants. From their possession, 35 carton plain country made liquor having 50 ml quarter in each carton and one motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-07-LH- 9148 was also seized. Thereafter he gave notice to the applicants under Section 91 of CrPC (Ex-P/11) and admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same and prepared seizure memo (Ex-P/12 & P/13) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same and also prepared arrest memo of accused vide Ex-P/3 to P/6. He also prepared spot map (Ex-P/14). In cross- examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that it is true that he did not file dehatinalisi and also admitted that he did not lodge dehati nalisi at the spot. He also admitted in notice (Ex-P/11) issued under Section 91 of CrPC that time was not mentioned and in the notice, signature of all accused was there but they did not write anything on the said document. He also admitted that he did not file any copy of rojnamchasanha. 9. PW-3 Jitendra Kumar Kashyap, Head Constable, PW-4 Meghnath Banjare, Head constable, the police witnesses and members of trap party, supported statements of Investigating Officer (PW-6) Vinod Mandavi but the other independent witnesses Chunnu Lal Sahu (PW-8), Mahendra Kumar Yadav (PW-9), Vijay Kumar (PW-10), Gajanand Pal (PW-11), Sitaram (PW-12) and Shyam Lal Sahu (PW-13) have not supported the prosecution case. They only admitted their signatures on seizure 6 memo (Ex-P/12 & P/13). The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them but they denied all suggestions of prosecution. 10. This Court in CRR No.77/2016, vide judgment dated 04.10.2023 in case of Punit Ram and another vs The State of Chhattisgarh held in paras 9, 10 & 11 as under:- “9. In the case of Mohanlal Vs. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online SC 974, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the investigation must be fair and justifiable. It was held that there should not be any conduct or impression which may give rise to general and real apprehension that the investigation was not fair. In that case the informant as well as the investigator was one and the same person. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case held that if a person who makes the allegation, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise about his fairness and impartiality. In such a circumstance, it is not necessary that a bias must be proved. It was further held that it would be illogical to presume and contrary to normally human conduct that such a person would himself at the end of investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with its attended consequences for the complainant himself. It can be assumed that the result of investigation would be foregone conclusion. 11. If we consider on the basis of the concept expressed in the above judicial pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme Court, in this case it is clear that the seizure from the accused has not been proved by the independent witnesses. P.W. 5 Revaram Sahu (Assistant Sub Inspector) who had seized the liquor has stated to have taken both the witnesses with him whereas his staff P.W. 7 Lata Nareti (Constable) has stated that both the witnesses were passing by the spot of the incident. P.W. 5. Revaram Sahu has stated that after reaching village Kottara, they were waiting on the road for the accused to come, while on the other 7 hand, P.W. 7 Lata Nareti has stated that the accused was arrested within 2 km from both the villages Padampur and Kottara. Thus, there is a contradiction regarding the place of seizure. P.W. 5 Revaram Sahu has admitted that the time of seizure of vehicle and liquor is 18.20 p.m. and on the Dehati Nalisi, time is also mentioned as 18.20 pm. He has admitted that crime number 160/2013 is written in the seizure exhibit P. 1. He has also admitted that he had written exhibit P-1 after returning to the police station. In this situation, when the independent witness has not proved the seizure proceedings, then coming back to the police station and writing the seizure makes the entire case doubtful.” 11. In light of the above, in the present case also, all police witnesses who were members of trap party, supported statement of Investigating Officer but other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. PW-6 Vinod Mandavi Investigating Officer admitted that he did not file any copy of rojnamchasanha with the charge sheet and also did not lodge any dehati nalisi at the spot. 12. PW-7 Jainath Ram Bhagat stated that he received seized property in Swaraj Majda vehicle of 35 cartons country made plain liquor total 1750 quarters and one motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-07-LH-9148 on 12.06.2015. He made entry in the register at Sr. No.41. Register is Ex-P/27 and attested copy is Ex-P/27C. In the cross-examination, he admitted that as per register (Ex-P/27) dated 12.06.2015, whether 35 cartons country made plain liquor was kept in seal packed condition or not is not mentioned. He also admitted that there is no mention of sending 35 quarters out of 1750 quarters for examination. He also admitted that in register (Ex-P/27), there is no mention of time. 8 13. PW-5 S. N. Sahu, Excise Sub Inspector examined 35 quarters and stated that after examination he found that all are country made plain liquor and gave his report (Ex-P/10). In the cross- examination, he admitted that no sample of seal of concerned police station was sent and there is no mention of sealing of liquor in the seizure. The total quantity of liquor was 1750 quarters but the prosecution had sent only 35 quarters for examination and entire seized material was not sent for testing. It is also clear from statement of Malkhana moharrar Jainath Ram Bhagat (PW-7) that he only stated about seizure of 1750 quarters on 12.06.2015 and there is no entry in the register (Ex-P/27) as to where the seized article was kept in seal packed condition during the said period. The prosecution has also not filed any document in this regard. 14. Thus, looking to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mohanlal vs State of Punjab, reported in (2018) SCC Online SC 974 and considering statement of independent witnesses, it is clear that no document has been filed by the prosecution as to where the seized substance was kept during this period. The seizure proceedings are also not corroborated by any independent witnesses and statement of Investigating Officer is not reliable. Thus it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court did not appreciate all 9 these factors so the finding recorded by both the Courts below is not sustainable. 15. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the charges under Section 34 (2) of the Excise Act. 16. The applicants are reported to be on bail. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the applicants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala