MAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 19-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 287 
. , 
'·--' 
MAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2011) 
·~ 
JULY 19, 2011 
B 
-· 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910: s.60(2) - Conviction 
under - Appellant arrested and half bottle of illicit liquor 
alongwith implement for manufacturing liquor seized from him c 
- Courts below convicted him u/s. 62 and sentenced him to 
undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine -
On appeal, held: Contention of appellant that large number 
of incriminating circumstances were introduced by the 
.. prosecution but the statement of the appellant recorded u/ D 
· s.313 Cr.P.C. was completely perfunctory is not acceptable 
at this belated stage - Incident occurred in 1979 and the 
appellant had faced trial and other liquor proceedings for 
almost 32 years and that too for being in possession of only 
half a bottle of liquor - Appellant has already undergone 5~ E 
months of sentence - In the interest of justice, order of courts 
below set aside and he is ordered to be acquitted. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
../ 
... 
No. 1441 of 2011. 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2010 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh n Crl. Revision 
Petition No. 2203 of 1983. 
' ' " 
Ravi Kumar Tomar for the Appellant. 
G 
Ratnakar Dash, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Anuvrat Sharma for 
the Respondent. 
287 
H 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 
-.. .. r 
A 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Delay condoned. 
B 
2. Leave granted. 
~ -
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
4. The appellant was arrested on the 11th August, 1979 
c 
at about 9:15a.m. and half a bottle of illicit liquor along with lahan 
and other implements for manufacturing liquor were seized from 
him. On the completion of the investigation, he was brought to 
trial for an offence punishable under Section 60(2) of the U.P. 
Excise Act, 1910. The trial court relying on the evidence of the 
members of the police party and the Excise Inspector convicted 
D him under the aforesaid provision and sentenced him to 
undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to payment of 
fine as well. This conviction and sentence has been confirmed 
by the first appellate court as well as tre Revisional Court vide 
judgments dated 22nd October, 1883 and 30th November, 2010 
E respectively. The matter is before us in this background. 
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for 
the appellant has raised primarily one submission before us. 
He has pointed out that though a large number of incriminating 
F circumstances had been introduced by the prosecution during 
.. 
" 
the course of the evidence but the statement of the appellant 
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
was completely perfunctory and did not satisfy the tests laid 
down by this Court in a string of cases and in this view of the 
G matter grave prejudice had been suffered by the appellant as 
all incriminating circumstances had not been put to him. It has 
• •• 
been submitted that this flaw in the trial required that he should 
be acquitted of the offence charged. 
6. We have considered the argument and find merit in it. 
H Section 313 postulates that all incriminating circumstances 
_, 
-
MAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
289 
must be put to an accused so.that he is in a position to explain · A 
the circumstances against him. We reproduce the statement 
in extenso herein below: 
"Q1 
You have heard the statement of accused which are 
against you what you have to say? 
Ans. They are deposing in enmity. 
Q2 
Will you lead the defence evidence? 
Ans. No. 
Q3 
Is there anything else you want to say? 
Ans. I was sitting at the shop of Brijbhan at Shishgarh 
Town and I was apprehended by the police persons 
during the crime week." 
7. Faced with an obvious difficulty, Mr. Ratnakar Dash, the 
learned Senior Counsel for the State of U.P. has submitted that 
8 
c 
D 
in this view of the matter, the trial court should be asked to 
record the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal 
E 
Procedure yet again so that any lacunae that has crept in can 
be filled up. We are not willing to accept this submission at this 
belated stage. The incident occurred way back in the year 1979 
and the appellant has been facing trial or other legal 
proceedings for almost 32 years now and that too for being in 
possession of only half a bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.