1 2026:CGHC:7617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.1042 of 2016  Preetam Singh Netam, S/o Shri Mansai Netam, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Amlipara (Kochwahi), P.S. – Gurur, District – Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : Excise Circle Balod, District – Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant/Respondent For Applicant : Shri Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate, For State/Respondent : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 11/02/2026 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 02.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.48/2016 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.), whereby judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1473/2015 has been affirmed by the PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.12 15:26:58 +0530 2 learned Appellate Court wherein the applicant has been convicted under Sections 36-A/45, 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 1 month; R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, additional S.I. for two months; R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, additional S.I. for two months, respectively. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.09.2015, the Investigating Officer, Excise Sub-Inspector Umesh Agrawal, received information through mobile phone that in village Amlipara, Kochwahi, the applicant/accused Preetam Singh had illegally prepared and stored mahua liquor. Acting upon this information, the Investigating Officer, without obtaining a search warrant, proceeded to the spot along with his staff. In the presence of witnesses, he first conducted personal search of himself, the staff, and the vehicle. Thereafter, when the house premises of the applicant/accused was searched, the accused was caught red-handed while providing mahua liquor for drinking to two persons, namely Mannalal and Shankar Kunjam, inside his house. Further, from the house premises a white, muddy-colored plastic jerrycan containing 2.5 bulk litres of illicit mahua liquor prepared by hand-distillation, along with one pot/Handi used for preparing liquor, was recovered and seized, thereafter, following the necessary procedure, the offence was registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District - Balod. The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. So as to prove the guilt of the 3 accused/applicant, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-applicant. The said judgment was challenged by the accused in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 02.11.2016 affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other. He further submits that as per the statement of independent witness Banshilal (PW-01), he has signed in blank papers (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6). Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the house from where the alleged seizure was made, was in exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further contended that the seized property was not kept in “sealed” condition as the same has not been mentioned in the Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-16). As such, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted from the offences leveled against him. 4 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. As per the statement of Umesh Agrawal (PW-6), Excise Sub-Inspector, on 21.09.2015, he along with the staff, reached village Amlipara and, in the presence of independent witnesses Banshi Lal Yadav (PW-1) and Sukalu Ram Sinha (PW-2), conducted personal search of himself, the staff, and the vehicle. Thereafter, as per the search memorandum (Ex. P-1), the house premises of the accused were searched. At the spot, two persons, who upon inquiry disclosed their names as Mannalal, and Shankar Kunjam, were found consuming mahua liquor after paying money to the accused. The accused was providing necessary facilities for consumption of liquor. Further, from the house premises one white muddy-coloured plastic jerrycan containing 2.5 bulk litres of hand- distilled mahua liquor, along with Handi used for preparation of mahua liquor, were recovered. The seized liquid was examined on the spot in the presence of witnesses, as per Exhibit P-2, and was found to be hand-distilled mahua liquor. 9. Banshilal (PW-01) and Sukaluram (PW-02) are the seizure witnesses of the alleged seized property. However, Banshilal (PW-01) has admitted in his cross-examination that the Excise Officer had not given him his 5 personal search. He further admitted that he had signed in papers vide Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 in which nothing was written over it and the said papers were taken by the Excise Officer, as such, it appears that the said documents were not prepared on the spot. The said documents are later prepared as Search Memorandum (Ex.P-1), Liquor Testing Memo (Ex.P-2), Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-3), Seizure Memo (Ex.P-4), Arrest Panchnama (Ex.P-5) and Spot Map (Ex.P-6). 10. Furthermore, Sukaluram (PW-2) has admitted that the officials of Excise Department had come to the village in the morning and not in the evening. He further admitted that when he went to the house of the Preetam (accused), he saw jerrycan and earthen pots were there in the courtyard and he cannot say whether the Excise officials have brought the liquor making utensils with them or they took out it from the Preetam’s house. Moreover, Rakesh (PW-3) has admitted that other than accused Preetam, his wife, children and his parents also resided in the same house from where the alleged seizure were made. As such, the said house and the alleged liquor were not in the exclusive possession of the accused. 11. Moreover, on perusal of the Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-16), it reveals that a white, muddy-colored plastic jerrycan containing 2.5 bulk litres mahua liquor, along with Handi were seized, but it is no where mentioned in the Malkhana Panji that the seized liquor was kept in “sealed” condition. As such, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to seal the seized property and to keep the same in safe custody, but the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty. 6 12. Taking into account the evidence available on record particularly the statements of the above witnesses, it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions in their statements and their statements are not duly corroborated with each other. Furthermore, as per the statement of Sukaluram (PW-02), the Excise officials had come to the village for investigation in the morning but as per seizure memo (Ex.P- 4), the time of seizure is mentioned as 15:30 O’clock. As such, the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged seizure of liquor and the house from where the said liquor has been seized, were in the exclusive possession of the applicant-accused. This apart, the two persons, namely, Mannalal and Shankar Kunjam who were drinking liquor in the spot, were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the conviction of the applicant under Sections 36-A/45, 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the sentence awarded thereunder being contrary to the law is liable to be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the conviction of the applicant and the sentence awarded thereunder is hereby set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the aforesaid charge. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant. 14. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The applicant is reported to be on bail and his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months 7 from today in view of provision of Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. 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 Prakash