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.