Man Singh vs State Of U.P

Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) NO. 4810 OF 2011

MAN SINGH ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties.

4. The appellant was arrested on the 11th August,

1979 at about 9:15a.m. and half a bottle of illicit

liquor along with lahan and other implements for

Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE

2

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 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 the Revisional Court

vide judgments dated 22nd October, 1983 and 30th

November, 2010 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

Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE

3

a large number of incriminating 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 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. Section 313 postulates that all incriminating

circumstances must be put to an accused so that he is

in a position to explain the circumstances against him.

We reproduce the statement in extenso herein below:

Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE

4

"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 in this view of the matter, the

trial court should be asked to record the statement

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal 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

Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE

5

has been facing trial or other legal proceedings for

almost 32 years now and that too for being in

possession of only half a bottle of liquor. We are

also told that he has undergone five months and 15 days

of the sentence that had been imposed on him. We find

that the ends of justice require that this appeal

should be allowed. We, accordingly, set aside the

orders of the courts below. The appellant is ordered

to be acquitted. He is said to be in custody. He

shall be released forthwith if not wanted in connection

with any other case.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE

6

NEW DELHI JULY 19, 2011.