Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 397 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-04-07

R.L.ANAND

body2000
ORDER R.L. Anand, J. - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 11.7.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner namely Ajit Singh, who was involved in a case under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.4.1985, a police party headed by ASI Mohinder Singh was proceeding towards Thattian in connection with patrolling and when it was outside the village ASI Mohinder Singh received secret information to the effect that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor in his house and could be apprehended red-handed. The information was reduced into writing and report of the case was sent to the police station and thus the case was registered against the petitioner. The police party associated Nazar Singh Panch and raided the house of the petitioner, where he was found distilling illicit liquor. At that time he was changing the water of the cooler. The still was cooled down, dismantled and its components were taken into possession vide recovery memo. The equipment contained about 40 kgs. of lahan and about 6 bottles of illicit liquor in the canister. The lahan was tested and found to be fully fermented fit for distillation. A sample of the illicit liquor was sent for analysis and was found to be illicit in nature. On completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act. 3. Charge was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined ASI Mohinder Singh PW1, Excise Inspector Mohinder Singh PW2, HC Jagir Singh PW3 and also tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PD and affidavits of formal witnesses Ex.PE and Ex.PG. The independent witness was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the petitioner. 5. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He pleaded himself to be innocent. He examined Amarjit Singh and Nazar Singh as defence witnesses, who gave a counter version that the petitioner was asked by the police to join a raid on the house of one Bakhshish Singh and when he refused to do so the police implicated him in the present case. 6. He examined Amarjit Singh and Nazar Singh as defence witnesses, who gave a counter version that the petitioner was asked by the police to join a raid on the house of one Bakhshish Singh and when he refused to do so the police implicated him in the present case. 6. The learned Magistrate as well as the first Appellate Court relied upon the version of the prosecution by rejecting the defence version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as stated above. 7. I have heard Shri Darshan Lal, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the State and have gone through the grounds of revision. I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction as the same is based upon the statements of ASI Mohinder Singh and HC Jagir Singh, PW1 and PW3 respectively. The only criticism which has been levelled against these people is that they are police officials, but this is no ground itself to reject the story of the prosecution. We see that independent witnesses do not support the police officials for several reasons. The non- examination of the independent witnesses only fasten the responsibility upon the Court to scrutinise the evidence with more care and caution. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner is hereby maintained. 8. So far as the sentence part is concerned, in the view of this Court, some interference is called for especially after a lapse of 12 years. The recovery in this case is of 12.4.1985. In this view of the matter, the present revision is dismissed with modification in the matter of sentence. The petitioner is directed to furnish probation bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar undertaking that during the period of one year he shall not commit any offence, shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. In case he violates the terms of the probation bond, he shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to receive the sentence. 9. Let the copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, who is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to execute the necessary bonds. In case he violates the terms of the probation bond, he shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to receive the sentence. 9. Let the copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, who is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to execute the necessary bonds. If the bonds are not executed by the petitioner within one month from the date of the receipt of notice, he shall not be entitled to the benefit of probation and shall serve the sentence awarded to him. Revision dismissed.