Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 390 (PNJ)

Aroor Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-04-06

V.K.BALI

body2000
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - This revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, dated 19th of September, 1987 vide which Aroor Singh petitioner was held guilty for an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and ordered to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. This order of conviction and sentence has since been upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide his order dated 14th of November, 1987 in appeal. 2. Broadly, the prosecution case has been that on 7th of December, 1983 at about 8.45 A.M. Head Constable Shiv Kumar alongwith Head Constable Randhir Singh and other police officials were present in village Bansa in connection with excise checking when he received secret information against the petitioner that he was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor at his dera and if raid was conducted liquor or lahan in sufficient quantity could be recovered from him. Head Constable Shiv Kumar sent intimation (ruqa) Ex. PF and raid and search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was interrogated and during the said interrogation, he made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one drum of lahan fit for distillation under the ground in his cattle shed and could get the same recorded (recovered ?). The petitioner led the police party and got recovered one drum containing 200 Kgs of lahan. The same was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. The contents of drum were tested by Raj Singh Excise Inspector the next day and he vide his report Ex. PQ found the contents of drum to be lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After investigation the petitioner was challaned and put up for trial under Section 16(1)(a) [61(1)(a) ?] of the Punjab Excise Act. 3. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner, the prosecution examined PW1 Excise Inspector Raj Singh, PW2 Shiv Kumar and PW3 Head Constable Ramesh Chander. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied incriminating material put to him and pleaded false implication. 5. I have heard Mr. R.K. Singla, D.A. and with his assistance examined the record. 6. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied incriminating material put to him and pleaded false implication. 5. I have heard Mr. R.K. Singla, D.A. and with his assistance examined the record. 6. At the very outset it requires to be mentioned that his criminal revision was admitted way back on November 20, 1987 and on the statement of the Counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed :- "Counsel for the petitioner states that PW2 Head Constable Shiv Kumar admitted that persons from the public met them on the way and they asked them to join but they expressed their inability to do so. When asked in cross-examination about their names, the answer was, "I do not remember whether their names were mentioned in the zimnis. I do not want to see the zimnis." Notice. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal." 7. The learned District Attorney admits the statement of PW is in the manner as has been mentioned above. If that be so, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein deserves acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt. No doubt it was a case of secret information but if on the way when the police party was going to the place where petitioner was stated to be distilling the illicit liquor and persons of public had met him, he ought to have joined some one to become a witness. It has, however, been stated by PW that nobody was prepared to join. It is rather strange that apart from taking any action against them which is permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Head Constable did not remember whether their names were mentioned in the Zimni. So much so, he did not even care to look at the Zimni. It, thus, appear to this Court that the prosecution has not come up with all the truth. Only a story seems to have been coined with regard to refusal of the public men to join the police party. The fact that the prosecution witness did not want to even look at the zimni would reveal that his statement that no one was prepared to join the police party at the time when the premises of the petitioner were raided is not correct. 8. The fact that the prosecution witness did not want to even look at the zimni would reveal that his statement that no one was prepared to join the police party at the time when the premises of the petitioner were raided is not correct. 8. Giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner, I acquit him of the charges framed against him. Consequently the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, which was confirmed by the appellate court in appeal is set aside and this revision is allowed. Revision allowed.