Failure to seal seized liquor and prove its safe custody in Malkhana vitiates conviction under Excise Act.

On July 21, 2015, Excise Sub-Inspector Nidhish Koshti (PW-03) conducted a search of the applicant's poultry farm based on secret information.

The prosecution alleged the recovery of 150 liters of Mahua liquor and 2,000 kilograms of Mahua Lahan, leading to the applicant's conviction under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, sentenced the applicant to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000, a decision affirmed by the Sessions Judge on November 9, 2016.

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending that the seizure witnesses had turned hostile, the seizing officer acted outside his jurisdiction, and the seized articles were neither sealed nor produced in court.

1. Whether the search and seizure conducted by an Excise Officer outside his assigned jurisdiction, without a specific authorizing order on record, vitiates the prosecution's case.

2. Whether the failure to seal the seized liquor, affix a sample seal on the seizure memo, and produce a Malkhana register constitutes a fatal procedural lapse.

3. Whether the conviction is sustainable when independent seizure witnesses testify that their signatures were obtained under duress at the Excise Office rather than at the spot of recovery.

The Court applied Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, regarding the unlawful possession of intoxicants, and Section 57(a) of the same Act, which mandates reporting of search and seizure to official superiors.

The Court relied on the precedent established in Suresh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2006 (3) CGLJ 259), which held that the non-production of seized property, lack of sealing, and failure to comply with statutory reporting requirements under Section 57 vitiate the prosecution.

The procedural transition to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, was noted regarding bail bonds.

The Court found several critical infirmities in the prosecution's case.

PW-03 admitted during cross-examination that the search location was outside his jurisdiction and failed to produce the Collector’s order authorizing his inquiry in that circle.

The independent witnesses (PW-01 and PW-02) turned hostile, stating their signatures were obtained at the Excise Office rather than the alleged crime scene, thereby destroying the credibility of the recovery.

The Court observed that the seizure memo (Ex. P-5) lacked a sample seal and there was no evidence (such as a Malkhana register) to prove the articles were kept in safe custody or remained untampered.

The destruction of the Mahua Lahan without a specific judicial or administrative order and the failure to comply with the reporting mandate of Section 57(a) led the Court to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the cumulative effect of jurisdictional errors, lack of sealing, and hostile testimony entitled the applicant to the benefit of the doubt.

The applicant was acquitted of all charges under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act; the Court ordered the refund of any fine paid and directed the release of the applicant from his bail bonds after six months, per Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.