FARMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-168
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 23,2013

Farman Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Accused Farman was tried for the offence punishable under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, on the basis of chargesheet filed against him. He was found guilty and was convicted of the said offence. Convict Farman was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo six months' further imprisonment, vide order dated 10.10.2006. Aggrieved against the said order dated 10.10.2006, a criminal appeal was preferred. The said criminal appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 01.02.2007, whereby the conviction and sentence of the appellant Farman was affirmed.
(2.) Aggrieved against said order, present criminal revision was preferred. Even a glance over the judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court would reveal that there was no illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The allegation, which was proved against the accused- revisionist, was that on 29.06.2003, at 03:30 P.M., police intercepted a tempo, near pathri bridge and on checking, 50 quarters containing illicit liquor were recovered from a gunny bag kept near the driver's seat, for the transportation of which the driver of the vehicle was not having any license. The tempo was being driven by accused Farman.
(3.) PW1 Sukhvir Singh, PW2 Murari Singh, PW3 Ravindra Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. DW1 Mukarram was examined on behalf of the defence. Prosecution also proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-1), copy of GD (Ext Ka-2), site plan (Ext. Ka-3), FIR (Ext. Ka-4). PW1 Sukhvir affected arrest of the accused. Gunny bag, in which illicit liquor was kept, was exhibited as Ext. 1 and quarters of illicit liquor were exhibited as Ext. 2 to Ext. 51. PW2 fully corroborated the testimony of PW1 and also proved the copy of FIR (Ext. Ka-4) and the memo regarding recovery of illicit liquor. PW3 Ravindra Singh also supported prosecution story. Chik FIR of the incident (Ext. Ka-1), GD entry (Ext. Ka-2), site plan (Ext Ka-3) and FIR (Ext. Ka-4) were also proved. DW1 Mukarram said, in his evidence, that he was travelling in the same tempo and was going to Kaliyar. One person named Ikhlakh was also sitting in the tempo and was having two gunny bags in his possession. The testimony of DW1 does not inspire confidence, in as much as, why the driver of a vehicle will permit a passenger to carry liquor in his vehicle in such enormous quantity There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the policemen, who were public servants. The Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, after having found that the prosecution was able to prove it's case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, convicted accused revisionist under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand with certain amendments) and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months' alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.