Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 320 (PNJ)

Salwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-03-17

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.8.85 police party was on excise checking on cycles from Ajnala to Kharwal headed by HC Bawa Singh, Police party was consisting of Constables Kashmir Singh, Tarlok Singh, Shabeg Singh and Som Raj etc. Besides there were some members of the Excise staff with them. When the police party reached near village Granthgarh, HC Bawa Singh received secret information that Mst. Bholi alias Gurmeet widow of Rattan, Caste Rai Sikh and Salwinder Singh son of Bagga, Caste Rai Sikh, residents of village Khanwal were distilling illicit liquor by means of working still in the house of Mst. Bholi and if timely raid was conducted at them, they could be caught while distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. On receipt of secret information, HC Bawa Singh accompanied by Constable Kahsmir Singh etc. reached the house of Mst. Bholi. On the way, he tried to join some respectable witness but none was available. When they reached the house of Bholi, they found Bholi and Salwinder Singh distilling illicit liquor by means of working still, Bholi was changing the water of the cooler. Salwinder Singh was feeding fire in the hearth of the still. Working still was dismantled and cooled. Components of the working still were taken into possession. Drum containing lahan weighing 100 Kgs. was lying on the hearth of the still. It was being used as boiler. On chhakala was put on the drum beneath which, there was a big hole. There was small hole on its side. A disc was put on the chhakala, which was having hole on its side. In the side hole of disc one end of the plastic pipe was fitted and it was passing through the side hole of the chhakala which was fitted in the receiving can from its other end. Liquor was trickling through the plastic pipe after distillation and falling in the receiving can. One Patila was being used as cooler and put on the chhakala. There was a tin dibba lying near the hearth, which was being used for changing the water of the cooler. A tin was also lying there. 180 MLs of illicit liquor was taken out as sample. Remaining liquor was transferred into 5 bottles. Sample nip, bottles and the drum boiler were sealed with seal of HC Bawa Singh bearing impression BS. A tin was also lying there. 180 MLs of illicit liquor was taken out as sample. Remaining liquor was transferred into 5 bottles. Sample nip, bottles and the drum boiler were sealed with seal of HC Bawa Singh bearing impression BS. Seal after use was handed over to C. Gurwant Singh. On return to the police station, the components of the still Ex. P1 to P14 were deposited with MHC Rattan Singh. On 30.8.85, Excise Inspector Niranjan Singh tested the contents of the drum boiler. From their taste, colour and smell, he found the some to be fully fermented lahan and partially distilled lahan, out of which some liquor had been distilled and some liquor could be still distilled. He gave test Ex. PA in this behalf. Sample nip was sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis who found the same to be illicit liquor. After investigation, accused was challaned under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. 2. Accused were charged under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala vide order dated 8.8.86. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. At the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala found the charge proved against the accused. He, accordingly, convicted them and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 1-1/4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months vide order dated 11.9.87. 4. Salwinder Sigh and Bholi went in appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 13.5.88 so far as conviction is concerned. Qua Salwinder Singh, he dismissed the appeal as regards sentence also. Qua Bholi, he modified the sentence and ordered her release on probation of good conduct. 5. Not satisfied with the order or Addl. Sessions Judge, Amristar dated 13.5.88, Salwinder Singh has come in revision to this Court. 6. HC Bawa Singh etc. raided the house of the accused on receipt of secret information. Secret information was received by them at about 5.30 A.M. They reached the house of Mst. Bholi at about 6.15 A.M. It was the month of August. House of Mst. Bholi is situated in the middle of the village in a street. They reached the house of Bholi after passing through the streets. Secret information was received by them at about 5.30 A.M. They reached the house of Mst. Bholi at about 6.15 A.M. It was the month of August. House of Mst. Bholi is situated in the middle of the village in a street. They reached the house of Bholi after passing through the streets. It is not believable that no body came forward to join them, if they had really asked some one to join them. Ruqa was sent per Constable Som Raj. Constable Som Raj could be directed to bring some one with him, so that he could vouchsafe that the police party was at the house of the accused busy investigating working still case. Case property was brought on a rehra to the Police Station. That rehara had been brought by some Constable. That Rehra man could have been cited as PW. If he had been cited as PW he could have stated that the carried the case property of this case from the house of Mst. Bholi on 28.8.85 to the police station. HC Bawa Singh should have joined some independent witness before he raided the house of the accused, when he was proceeding acting on receipt of secret information. Secret information was received by them at 5.30 A.M. and they reached the house of the accused at 6.15 A.M. They could thus catch hold of some one and take him to the place of raid. Prosecution case rests on the testimony of HC Bawa Singh and that of C. Gurwant Singh. Both of them are police officials interested in the success of the case detected by them. It is true that police officials can be believed without corroboration but it is equally true that where corroboration can be had but is not had to their testimony, they should not be disbelieved. HC Bawa Singh PW2 stated that the house of the accused is situated outside the village. Constable Gurwant Singh stated that house of the accused is situated in the middle of the village. Both these PWs are thus discrepant also with each other. 6A. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. Petitioner should have been given the benefit of doubt. He is accordingly given the benefit of doubt. So this revision succeeds and is, accepted. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. 6A. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. Petitioner should have been given the benefit of doubt. He is accordingly given the benefit of doubt. So this revision succeeds and is, accepted. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed.