Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants, Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Kartikey Pandey, and Amrendra Kumar Pandey against the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Pandey & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2015, under Sections 272, 120 of I.P.C. read with Sections 60/63 Of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station-Aurai, District-Bhadohi, whereby all three accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment each under Section 272 of I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default thereof, they have to further undergo one year additional imprisonment; and one year rigorous imprisonment each under Section 60 of the Excise Act with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof, they have to further undergo one month additional imprisonment each, with an observation that all the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the entire materials available on trial court record.
3. The prosecution story is that on 11th July, 2015, the Sub-Inspector Suresh Singh (informant) and other police personnels were on patrol duty for searching the miscreants on the way of Maharajganj and when they reached near the tractor workshop of one Bhola Singh, they found that Anand Kumar Singh, Village Pradhan of Village Tewri along with two persons were chasing two young boys, who were aged around 19 to 20 years and were wearing dark coloured pants and shirt, and were running towards the western side of the tractor workshop. Seeing them, all the police personnels including the informant and other villagers tried to chase both the young boys and made all possible efforts to nab them but they took the advantage of rain and escaped.
4. As per the informant, the Village Pradhan, Anand Kumar told him that at about 09.00 p.m. one vehicle bearing No. U.P. 70 AL-0312 came from the side of Varanasi in a high speed and after losing its balance went down the road and collided with the old thresher kept at the vacant place before the workshop and it got damaged. At that time he was on his way to the tractor workshop for his work. The Village Pradhan further stated that two person quickly came out of the aforesaid vehicle and swiftly started running towards the west side on the road. On suspicion that they might be criminals, he along with other villagers tried to chase them. In the meantime, Police personnels came and information was given that some illicit substance may be kept in the vehicle. Following this, the damaged vehicle bearing No. UP 70 AL-0312 was checked by the Police personnels along with Village Pradhan and from the back side of the vehicle i.e. dicky, two Jerrican (can) in black colour were recovered, out of which, one was broken and empty and the other contained about 40 liters liquor (adulterated). When the cap of the said Jerrican was opened, it emitted strong smell of mixed liquor. Out of the aforesaid 40 litres of liquor (adulterated), one litre was taken out as a sample in a plastic bottle and the same was sealed. The recovered Jerrican containing remaining 39 litres adulterated liquor was also sealed. Recovery memos were prepared. The recovered vehicle was also seized as per Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act for carrying/transporting illicit liquors. After that, case under Sections 60/63 of Excise Act and Section 272 of I.P.C. against two unknown persons was registered.
5. Later on, during investigation, the accused-appellant, Pradeep Kumar Pandey was arrested upon obtaining a report from the concerned Regional Transport Officer in which it was stated that the recovered vehicle bearing No. UP 70 AL-0312 belongs to the accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar Pandey.
6. Investigation proceeded and after conducting statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge Sheet Nos. 11/2016 and 11A/2016 against the accused-appellants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Kartik Kumar Pandey and Amarendra Kumar Pandey under Sections 272, 120B of I.P.C. and Sections 60/63 of Excise Act for trial before the Court concerned. Upon submission of the charge-sheets, cognizance was taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.02.2016 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The concerned Sessions Court i.e. trial court framed the charges against the accused-appellants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Kartik Kumar Pandey and Amarendra Kumar Pandey under Sections 272, 120B of I.P.C. and Sections 60/63 of Excise Act. The accused-appellants denied the charges and requested for trial.
7. The prosecution examined total four witnesses in the following manner:-
i) P.W.-1/Informant, namely, Sub-Inspector Suresh Singh;
ii) P.W.-2, namely, Anil Kumar Gupta, retired Sub-Inspector;
iii) P.W.-3, namely, Hemant Kumar Jaiswal, Head Constable; and
iv) P.W.-4, namely, Anand Kumar Singh, Village Pradhan, who is said to be an eye-witness.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon documentary evidence, which were duly proved and consequently marked as Exhibits. The same are catalogued herein below:-
i) Recovery memos/written report have been marked as Exhibit-Ka-1;
ii) Charge-sheets submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused-appellants have been marked as Exhibits Ka-2 & 3;
iii) Site plan has been marked as Exhibit-Ka-4;
iv) Letter written to the Regional Transport Officer has been marked as Exhibit-Ka-5;
v). Carbon copy of G.D. entry has been marked as Exhibit-Ka-6; and
vi). The first information report has been marked as Exhibit-Ka-7.
9. P.W.-1/informant, namely, Sub-Inspector Suresh Singh, in his statement, has reiterated the same version as unfolded in the first information report. It is stated that the damaged car, which was used for transporting the illicit liquor was seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same has been made case property. The recovery memos of the seized car and Jerrican were marked as Exhibit Ka-1 and the same were proved by P.W.1. The recovered car bearing No. UP 70 AL-0312 is lying in the Police Station in a damaged condition and therefore, it could not be produced before the trial court.
10. P.W.-2, Anil Kumar Gupta, retired Sub-Inspector, in his statement has supported the prosecution version as unfolded in the first information report. He has submitted that after the verifying the fact that the owner of the recovered Indica Car No. UP 70 AL-0312 was the accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar Pandey, he was arrested. Later on, other two accused-appellants, namely, Kartik Kumar Pandey and Amarendra Kumar Pandey were also nominated from the disclosure made by the accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar Pandey in his confessional statement before the Police. This witness has also proved the memos of arrest of accused-appellants, namely, Kartik Kumar Pandey and Amarendra Kumar Pandey, which were marked as Exhibits Ka-3A/1 and 3A/2 and also the site plan which was marked as Exhibit-Ka-4. The letter written to the Regional Transport Officer along with report of P.W.2, which were marked as Exhibit-ka-5 has also been proved by this witness.
11. P.W.-3 Head Constable Hemant Kumar Jaiswal has also supported the prosecution version as enumerated in the first information report. He has also stated that he has prepared the recovery memos of seized car, Jerrican containing 39 litres adulterated liquor and the plastic bottles containing one litre adulterated liquor as sample. He has also prepared the report of seizure of the car under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has prepared the chik first information report. He has further stated that his statement has also been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has proved the document no. 8A/5, which was prepared by him and was marked as Exhibit-Ka-6. He has also proved the computerized copy bearing no. 4A/1, which was prepared by Sita Ram Yadav and marked as Exhibit-Ka-7.
12. P.W.-4, Anand Kumar Singh, who is said to be an eye-witness has deposed in his statement that at the time of incident, he was village Pradhan of village Tewri and he was present at his house, when at about 09:00 a.m. (in the morning) a car, which was in high speed collided with the thresher parked next to Shambhu Singh's tractor workshop on the east side. On hearing the loud noise, he and some other villagers from the neighbourhood came to the spot. It was seen that a car bearing No. UP 70 AL 0312 had collided with a thresher due to which the rear seat of the car was broken and the front bumper was also broken. Two boys of around 19 to 20 years of age were sitting inside the car. The smell of alcohol was coming from the car. After opening the gate, both the boys were hauled out and after some time, they both began to walk and moved a short distance apart. They thought that they were going for natures’ call, but after reaching some distance both of them started running away. This witness and two-three boys tried chasing them. In the meantime, P.W.-1/informant and Assistant Sub-Inspector Vijay Yadav came on the spot and asked why were both boys running, P.W.-4 informed them everything and showed the two boys running. P.W.-1 and Vijay Yadav also started chasing them. But taking advantage of the rain, both boys succeeded in escaping from the spot. Thereafter, the damaged car was checked, two Jerricans of about 40 liters each were found, one of which was filled with adulterated liquor and the other was broken and its thick liquor had flown away. After that one litre liquor was taken out from the jerrican containing 40 litres of adulterated liquor as a sample. This witness has further stated that the Police personnels prepared the recovery memos on which he appended his signatures and proved the same before the trial court. Thereafter the Police took away the damaged car to the Police Station with the help of Crane, He has further stated that he was asked by the Police whether he could identify the said boys at the police station in front of them. Statement of P.W.-4 was also recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has proved the recovery memos prepared by the Police and were marked as Exhibit-Ka-1.
13. After recording of the prosecution evidence by the trial court, the incriminating evidence were put to the accused-appellants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Kartik Kumar Pandey and Amarendra Kumar Pandey for confronting with the same under Section 313 Cr.PC. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellants, denied their involvement in the commissioning of the offence punishable under Sections 272 and 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 60/63 of Excise Act. The accused-appellants have also not adduced any evidence in support of their case.
14. On the basis of evidence so lead during the course of trial, the court below has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellants and has convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 272 of I.P.C. and Section 60 of Excise Act and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine, referred to above.
15. At the very outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted that the accused-appellants have undergone more than one and half years of actual sentence as on date.
16. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the charge under Section 272 of I.P.C. is not made out against the accused-appellants. In support of his submission, he has referred to Section 272 of I.P.C., which is extracted herein-below:
“272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
STATE AMENDMENTS
……..
Uttar Pradesh:
In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in S. 272, for the words "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both" substitute the following words. "shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine”:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than imprisonment for life."- U.P. Act 47 of 1975, S. 3 (1) (15-9-1975).”
17. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that from the perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is apparent that in order to prove the charge under Section 272 of I.P.C. the prosecution is required to prove that the recovered article from a person is an adulterated article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink and the intention to sell such article as food or drink.
18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that there is no evidence on record that the accused-appellants intended to sell the recovered material as an article of food or drink. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that another requirement under Section 272 of I.P.C. is that the accused/persons must have knowledge that it is likely to be sold as noxious drink or food. The intention and mens rea on the part of the accused-appellants is to be proved by the prosecution, which is completely missing in the present case.
19. Then, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has referred to the first information report, which was marked as Exhibit-Ka-7, G.D. entry dated 11th July, 2015 and the recovery memo marked as Exhibit-Ka-1, wherein it is mentioned that at the spot, car make of Alto bearing No. UP 70 AL 0312 was found, whereas in the letter addressed to the Regional Transport Officer by the Investigating Officer dated 15th July, 2015, which was marked as Exhibit Ka-5 for verification of the recovered and seized car, it is mentioned that the said car is of make Indica bearing Registration No. UP 70 AL 0312, Engine No. BTZP 17671, Chassis No. 600136 BTZP 4930.
20. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has also drawn the attention of the Court to the report submitted by the Regional Transport Officer in response to the letter of the Investigating Officer, which was also marked as Exhibit Ka-5, wherein it has been stated that vehicle No. UP 70 AL 0312 of make “Indica” belongs to accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar son of Panna Lal.
21. Thus, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that it is the candid case of the prosecution as well as P.W.-4 that from the spot the car of make Alto was recovered and later on during the investigation, it was converted/changed into a car of make “Indica”, without there being any explanation in this regard. It is a major inconsistency in the prosecution evidence.
22. Next argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that there is no evidence on record that after the arrest of the accused-appellants when they were produced before the Magistrate along with the case property, any endorsement was made by the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 457 Cr.P.C. ,when as a matter of fact that it is the specific case of the Investigating Officer and P.W.-1 that the recovered car was never produced, before the trial court, as it was in damaged condition for verifying/establishing the fact that the recovered car from the spot was a car of make “Alto” or “Indica”.
23. It is next argued that even the identity of the accused-appellants were not proved by the prosecution. It has come in the statement of P.W.-4 that two boys of around 19 to 20 year of age were seen in the car and that they ran away from the spot.
24. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has next argued that as per the prosecution case, even the seizure of the sample i.e. 1 litre of adulterated liquor taken from the Jerrican containing 40 litres adulterated liquor, was not proved, as no sample slip or recovery memo was prepared at the spot which was sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Even the remainder of 39 litres was not produced before the trial court, as admitted by P.W.-1/informant.
25. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has referred to the statement of P.W.-4, who is said to be an eye-witness. In the cross-examination, P.W.-4 has stated that he has not signed on the written recovery memos, whereas the Police obtained his signatures on a blank paper, which also creates a doubt in the prosecution case.
26. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants next argued that in order to establish its case under Section 272 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to prove that the recovered article/material is in fact noxious drink meant for sale. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Ramnagar, Varanasi dated 22nd December, 2015, wherein the result reads as under:
"बोतल का दूरा विश्लेषण द्वारा अवमिश्रित स्प्रिंट पायी गयी। नमूने में एल्कोहल की प्रतिशत मात्रा 87.2 आयतन / आयतन पायी गयी। नमूने में अमोनियम क्लोराईड (नौसादर) के परीक्षण परिणाम सकारात्मक पाये गये तथा डिनेचरेन्ट्स मिथाइल एल्कोहल एवं क्लोरलहाइड्रेट' के परीक्षण परिणाम नकारात्मक पाये गये। भौतिक एवं रासायनिक विधियाँ प्रयोग की गयी।"
27. On perusal of the said report, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that on analysis of the bottle, sprint was found in the sample. The percentage of alcohol in the sample was found to be 87.2 %. In the sample, the test results of ammonium chloride salt were found positive, whereas the test results of denatured methyl alcohol and chloro hydrate were found negative. There is no opinion formed that recovered alcohol was unfit for human consumption.
28. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has referred to Section 3 of the U.P. Excise Act, wherein the word “denatured” is defined under Section 3 (9) of the Excise Act. For ready reference the same is quoted hereunder:
“3. Definitions.---
..
[(9) "denatured" means rendered unfit for human consumption in such manner as may be prescribed by the [State Government] by notification in this behalf. When it is proved that any spirit contains any quantity of any substance prescribed by the '[State Government] for the purpose of denaturation the Court may presume that such spirit is or contains or has been derived from denatured spirit;]”
29. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that even as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, wherein no percentage of ammonium chloride is defined or mentioned and only it is stated that same is found in positive, therefore, is not sufficient to hold that the recovered article in fact is noxious drink.
30. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 (2) ALJ 259/AIRONLINE 2021 All 13, wherein this Court has held that where the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not specify the percentage of the Ammonium Chloride (Nausadar) and only speaks of presence of urea, Ammonium Chloride, it cannot be said to be a legal report in eye of law for bringing a person guilty for offence punishable under Section 272 I.P.C.
31. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that in the report submitted by the Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Ramnagar, Varanasi dated 22nd December, 2015, only presence of Ammonium Chloride (Nausadar) is found but there is no percentage of Ammonium Chloride (Nausadar) mentioned in such report and therefore the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 272 I.P.C. is liable to be set aside.
32. In the case of Ashok (Supra), it has also been observed that the Food Act as per Chapter IX deals with the offences and penalties which provide for punishments for contravention of the provisions of the Act. However, the comparative study of Section 272 of I.P.C. and the relevant provisions of Food Act, which has repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 do not provide the definition of terms with regard to commission of offence, as in the present case.
33. Perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok (Supra) shows that in the said case also recovered article was illicit liquor containing Ammonium Chloride (Nausadar) without specifying any percentage and on the basis of same the Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant and therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 272 of I.P.C. was set aside. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant, therefore, submits that the conviction of the present accused-appellants is also liable to be set aside.
34. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has opposed the above submission advanced on behalf of the accused-appellants on the ground that it is the accused-appellants to prove that the liquor which was carrying was not meant for human consumption.
35. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has further argued that in the report submitted by the Regional Transport Officer, it was mentioned that the recovered car belongs to one of the accused-appellant i.e. Pradeep Kumar Pandey and therefore, wrong mentioning of make of car in the first information report, which was marked as Exhibit-Ka-7, G.D. entry dated 11th July, 2015 and the recovery memo marked as Exhibit-Ka-1, will not demolish the prosecution case to hold that no case is made out against the accused-appellants. He has also argued that P.W.-4, who is an eye-witness has supported the prosecution case in all respect and has proved the recovery memo.
36. Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that no test identification parade which has evidentiary value under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, was done in the present case and even in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it has not come that two of the accused-appellants were in fact the same persons, who were sitting in the car collided with the thresher as per the prosecution case.
37. On a query made by Court about the criminal antecedents to the credit of the accused-appellants, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted that they were not involved in any criminal case before institution of the present criminal case nor they have been convicted in any other case. One of the accused-appellant i.e. appellant no.1 is said to be 60 years of age. This fact is not denied by the learned A.G.A.
38. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of the evidence on record with regard to the credibility of and reliability of P.W.-1 and P.W.-4, we do not find the same trustworthy or reliable nor can they be treated as eye witnesses so as to rely upon their testimony. P.W.-1 has neither given make of car nor produced the case property i.e. car and remaining sealed 39 litres of alcohol.
39. In view of the deliberation and discussions, we find that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution are also not found reliable. The F.S.L. report does not support the prosecution case. There is no other evidence on the basis of which the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant could be sustained.
40. In such view of the matter, we find that judgement and order passed by the Court below convicting the accused-appellants cannot be sustained for following reasons:
a). The Court below has not examined the testimony of witnesses and other evidence on record nor have they been carefully scrutinized. There are inherent contradictions in their versions, which have been clearly overlooked by the trial court. The basic and important evidence which is lacking in this case is that nothing has come on record to prove that the recovered article was meant for sale as human consumption. It is also not proved that the recovered item falls within the definition of noxious food, which is harmful for human consumption. In absence of any specific report regarding percentage of Ammonium Chloride (Nausadar), though it is specified in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory that in the sample 87.2 % alcohol was found, the prosecution has even failed to prove that the recovered illicit liquors from the car was meant for sale and for human consumption.
b). Another aspect which makes the prosecution case doubtful is that no accused-appellant/person was arrested on the spot and after their arrest, the prosecution has failed to conduct the test identification parade and therefore, the accused-appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Even otherwise, the case property i.e. the seized car has also not been produced before the trial court, so that it may find out as to whether the seized car is make of “Alto” or “Indica” and the same belongs to one of the accused-appellant i.e. Pradeep Kumar Pandey. The FIR reflects make of the car as “Alto”, which met with accident from which recovery was made. Moreover, even in the statement of P.W.-1/informant make of the car is not mentioned.
c). The recovery memos of Jerrican containing 40 litres of adulterated liquor as per the case of prosecution and broken Jerrican, prepared by the Police also make the recovery doubtful, as P.W.-4 himself in his cross-examination has stated that he has not signed on the written recovery memos and his signatures were obtained by the Police on a blank paper.
d). In examination-in-chief, P.W.-4 Anand Kumar, who is the sole eye-witness, failed to identify any of the accused-persons and in cross-examination, he admitted that no accused was arrested at spot. This witness stated that his signatures were taken on a blank paper by the Police. Therefore, the identity of none of the accused is proved.
e). The report of the F.S.L. was put to accused persons for the first time during statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to prove that it was part of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and was provided to accused persons at the time of framing of charge. Both the Investigating Officers i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have failed to prove and exhibit the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. along with the list of documents. Therefore, the F.S.L. report was never supplied to the accused persons.
It is held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarun Tyagi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2017) 4 SCC 490 that Section 207 Cr.P.C. puts an obligation on prosecution to furnish to the accused copies of documents, free of cost, which are forwarded by the Police to the Magistrate report under Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C.
f) Though the expert, who prepared F.S.L. report, is not examined as witness, yet the trial court in view of Section 293 Cr.P.C. has relied upon and taken into consideration. But once the F.S.L. report is not supplied till the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the right of accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officers on this point was denied.
g). Even the charge made under Sections 60/63 of U.P. Excise Act is not sustainable. Section 60 provides penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession or sale of intoxicants. The punishment for possession and transportation of intoxicant, as per Section 60 (b) of U.P. Excise Act, which is not covered under Section 63 of the Act, is upto two years and fine, as defined and punishment for transport and possession of unlawfully imported intoxicant is six months to five years with fine.
In the instant case, neither the possession nor transportation is proved as already held that none of the accused was arrested at spot; make of car is different i.e. recovered car was “Alto” and later on changed as “Indica”; neither the case property nor car was produced before the trial court; the sole eye-witness i.e. P.W.4 failed to identify any of the accused; the F.S.L. report was never supplied to the accused in terms of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and F.S.L. report does not specify contents/percentage of Ammonium Chloride and ever does not disclose the sample as unfit for human consumption. Therefore, on all counts prosecution case false flat.
41. In view of the above, the findings returned in the judgement and order passed by the Court below dated 16th September, 2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Pandey & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 20105, under Sections 272, 120 of I.P.C. read with Sections 60/63 Of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station-Aurai, District-Bhadohi, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants are reversed.
42. The present criminal appeal consequently succeeds and is allowed. Judgement and order dated 16th September, 2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar Pandey & Others) stands set aside.
43. The accused appellants, who are in judicial custody for more than one year and six months, are acquitted of the charges and they shall be released forthwith, unless are wanted in any other case on compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
44. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, henceforth, for necessary compliance.
