1 CGHC010181632026 2026:CGHC:28794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 630 of 2026 Order Reserved on 08.07.2026 Order Delivered on 10.07.2026 • Churan Verma, S/o Bisauha Verma, aged about 45 Years, R/o Village- Chaurenga, Thana- Simga, Distt- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, Distt.- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) CAV Order 1. This criminal revision under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) is directed against the judgment dated 28.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.16/2026 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, C.G. in Criminal Case No.1047/2025, whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.07.10 15:35:03 +0530 2 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short, “the Act, 1915”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, with a default stipulation to further undergo simple imprisonment for eight months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2025, PW-3 Manrakhan Netam, who was then posted as Excise Sub-Inspector, Excise Circle, Simga, received secret information regarding illegal storage of a large quantity of country-made liquor in the Kothar Badi of the applicant situated at Village Chaurenga. The said information was reduced into writing vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, notices under Section 179 of the BNSS were issued to two independent witnesses, namely, Anil Das and Dileshwar Fekar, vide Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-18. Upon reaching the spot, the applicant was informed about the purpose of the search and his consent was obtained vide Ex.P-3. Before conducting the search, personal search of the raiding party as well as the applicant was carried out vide Ex.P-4. During the search, 106 cartons of country- made liquor were recovered from a room situated in the Kothar Badi of the applicant, each carton containing 48 quarter bottles of 180 ml labelled as “Deshi Madira Masala”, totalling 5,088 bottles measuring 915.84 bulk litres, which was recovered vide Ex.P-5. One bottle from each carton was taken for examination and was found to contain country-made liquor, as per the examination report (Ex.P-6). Thereafter, the applicant was served with a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS (Ex.P-7) requiring him to produce any valid licence or authority for possession of the liquor, but he failed to produce any such document. Consequently, the liquor was seized vide Ex.P-8, the specimen seal memorandum was prepared vide Ex.P-9, and the 3 applicant was arrested vide Ex.P-11. During investigation, memorandum relating to ownership of the premises was prepared vide Ex.P-12, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-13, and the entire search and seizure proceedings were audio-video recorded and produced before the trial Court as Article A-1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1915. 3. Learned trial Court framed charge against the applicant under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1915. The applicant denied the charge and claimed trial. His statement under Section 351 of the BNSS was recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Anil Das, PW-2 Dileshwar Fekar and PW-3 Manrakhan Netam, and exhibited 19 documents i.e. Exs.P-1 to P-19 along with Article A-1. In defence, the applicant neither examined any witness nor produced any document. 5. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted and sentenced the applicant as stated hereinabove. The said judgment was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by filing Criminal Appeal No.16/2026. The learned Appellate Court, upon re- appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the 4 applicant for the alleged offence. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the applicant committed the offence. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the alleged liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. As regards the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, the testimony of PW-3 Manrakhan Netam, Investigating Officer, is significant. He has deposed that on 19.07.2025, while posted at Excise Circle, Simga, he received secret information regarding illegal storage of a large quantity of country-made liquor in the Kothar Badi of the applicant, which was reduced into writing vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, notices under Section 179 of the BNSS were issued to the independent witnesses, namely, Anil Das and Dileshwar Fekar (Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-18). He has further stated that after reaching the spot, the applicant was informed about the purpose of the search and his consent was obtained vide Ex.P-3. Before commencing the search, 5 personal search of the members of the raiding party as well as the applicant was conducted vide Ex.P-4. During the search, 106 cartons containing 5,088 quarter bottles measuring 915.84 bulk litres of country-made liquor were recovered from a room situated in the Kothar Badi of the applicant and the recovery memo was prepared vide Ex.P- 5. One bottle from each carton was examined and was found to contain country-made liquor, as reflected in Ex.P-6. Thereafter, the applicant was served with notice under Section 94 of the BNSS (Ex.P-7), but he failed to produce any licence or authority. Consequently, the liquor was seized vide Ex.P-8, the specimen seal memorandum was prepared vide Ex.P-9, and the applicant was arrested vide Ex.P-11. He has also stated that the entire search and seizure proceedings were audio-video recorded and produced before the trial Court as Article A-1. Though this witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but no material contradiction or omission has been brought on record to discredit his testimony. Nothing has been elicited to show any motive on his part to falsely implicate the applicant. His evidence remains consistent and trustworthy on all material particulars. 10. Further, the testimony of PW-3 Manrakhan Netam stands duly corroborated by PW-1 Anil Das, an independent witness, who has admitted his signatures on Exs.P-1 to P-17 and has stated that he accompanied the Excise officials to Village Chaurenga. In cross- examination, he admitted that 106 cartons of country-made liquor (each containing 48 quarter bottles) were recovered from the Kothar Badi belonging to the applicant. He also admitted that the entire proceedings were video recorded and identified himself as well as the applicant in Article A-1 before the trial Court. Though, PW-2 Dileshwar Fekar, 6 another witness, has admitted his signatures on the relevant documents (Exs.P-1 to P-17) and has not alleged that his signatures were obtained by force, coercion or fraud, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, the evidence of PW-1 Anil Das provides sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW-3 Manrakhan Netam, Investigating Officer. 11. From the evidence discussed hereinabove, it is evident that there are no material contradictions or omissions in the testimony of PW-3 Manrakhan Netam, Investigating Officer. His evidence stands duly corroborated by the testimony of another witness as well as the documentary evidence with regard to the search and seizure proceedings. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established that 106 cartons containing 5,088 quarter bottles measuring 915.84 bulk litres of country-made liquor were recovered from the Kothar Badi of the applicant, and that the applicant was in conscious and exclusive possession of the same. Admittedly, the applicant failed to produce any valid licence or authority for possessing such alleged liquor, therefore, the possession of the seized liquor by the applicant was clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1915. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. No perversity, illegality or material infirmity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7 Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1915 deserve to be affirmed. 13. Consequently, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 14. It is reported that the applicant is in jail. Therefore, there is no need to pass any order regarding his surrender/arrest etc. 15. Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh