M.Cr.C. No. 2201 of 2016. Case: Dalumal Vs State of M.P. and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberM.Cr.C. No. 2201 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Zafar Khan, Learned Senior Counsel and Dharmendra Khanchandani, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: Milind Phadke, Learned Govt. Advocate
JudgesJ. K. Jain, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 482; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27; Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 - Sections 34(1)(a), 34(2)
Judgement DateMay 02, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


J. K. Jain, J.

  1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Cr.R. No. 5/2016; whereby dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of framing charge under Section 34(2), 34(1)(a) of M.P. Excise Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barwani in Criminal Case No. 1005/2015 on 22.12.2015.

  2. Brief facts of this case are that on 11.10.2015, at about 8.00 pm., J.C. Patidar, S.H.O., Police Station Sendhwa on secret information intercepted a Truck No. MP09-KC-0268 at A.B. Road, Village Pipaldhar. On being searched the Truck, 250 boxes of goodwill whisky were found for which there was no valid permit for transportation. As a result at P.S. Sendhwa Crime No. 406/15 for the offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act has been registered against the Driver Rajesh. During investigation accused Rajesh disclosed that the illicit liquor was belonged to applicant Dalumal and on applicant's instructions he was transporting the liquor from Maharashtra to Daman. On this basis applicant is made accused in this case and final report has been filed against the Driver Rajesh and the applicant. Considering the material on record Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barwani framed the charge against the applicant and co-accused Rajesh for the offence under Sections 34(2), 34(1)(a) of the M.P. Excise Act. The applicant preferred Criminal Revision but the same was dismissed by First Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 08.02.2016. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this petition.

  3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Rajesh, however, on the basis of such statement no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. Therefore, such statement has no evidentiary value. The name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR and applicant was not present at the place of incident and he is not a registered owner of the truck in which allegedly the liquor transported. Thus, there is no iota of evidence against the present applicant. In such circumstances, to continue the prosecution against the applicant is misuse of process of law. In identical facts this Court in case of Suresh Upadhyay v. State of M.P. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 305, Rajveer Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (1) Madhya 93...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT