- (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.4.2014 passed in S.T. No. 386 of 2013, State Vs. Shailendra Rai @ Yashwant Rai and another, under Sections 60, 62, 63 Excise Act and under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist.
(2.) Brief facts are that the counsel for the revisionist was heard on charge and, accordingly, the charges under Sections 60, 62, 63, 72 of the Excise Act and charges under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that according to the Forensic Lab Report the percentage of alcohol in the sample was found 48.2, 48.5, thus, the charges cannot be levied against the accused. It is further argued that the accused was not heard before framing of the charge. There is no evidence under Sections 467, 468 I.P.C. against the accused and, as such, he is liable to be discharged but the learned lower court has wrongly rejected his application.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.;