Bounden Duty Of Prosecution To Seal Seized Property And To Keep The Same In Safe Custody: Chhattisgarh HC

The Court was hearing a Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. that challenged the judgment which upheld the conviction of the applicant under Section 34(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The bench of Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed, “It is 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.”

Advocate Shashwat Mishra appeared for the Appellant and Deputy Govt. Advocate Pragya Shrivastava appeared for the Respondent. 

Brief Facts-

In the present case, the police, acting on a tip, seized 3 litres of illegal Mahua liquor from the applicant. The applicant was convicted under Section 34(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced to three months' RI and a fine. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to one month. The decision of the appellate Court is challenged in the present revision.

The Court noted that the prosecution has failed to explain how the crime number was mentioned in the seizure memo despite the fact that after 1 and 1 1⁄2 hours of the seizure proceedings, the FIR was registered.

The Court also noted that the prosecution has not been able to show the exact place from where the liquor was seized and that no seal was affixed. The Court further said that the provisions of Section 57 (a) of the Excise Act have also not been complied with by the prosecution.

The Court mentioned the decision in Suresh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2006 (3) CGLJ 259 and quoted, “There is nothing on record to show as to where and in whose custody the 30 bulk liters of country made liquor was kept till filing of challan on 01-10-2004. There is also nothing to show that Excise Sub Inspector Shri K.L. Taram PW-2 had, within 24 hours after making the seizure made a full report of all the particulars of arrest, seizure or search to his immediate official superior as required under Section - 57 of the Act. Thus, there is total non-compliance of Section-- of the Act…..allowed revision….”

By applying the decision to the facts of the present case, the Court said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the conviction of the applicant under Section 34 (1) (a) of the C.G. Excise Act.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction of the applicant under Section 34 (1) (a) of the C.G. Excise Act.

Consequently, the Court allowed the revision.