Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 398 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-04-07

R.L.ANAND

body2000
ORDER R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 22.8.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 23.5.1987 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, which convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, or in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one year. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.5.1984 ASI Gurdev Singh and other police officials received a secret information at bus stand Litran that petitioner was distilling illicit liquor in his fields near the tubewell and could be apprehended red-handed. On receipt of the information ruqa was sent to Police Station Raikot. The Investigating Officer joined Harpal Singh Sarpanch of village Burj Hakiman in the police party and raided the fields where the petitioner was found feeling fire under the working still and was distilling illicit liquor. The working still was cooled down and dismantled. Sample was taken from the receiver plastic can and the same was sealed with the seal by the Investigating Officer. The drum which was being used as a boiler containing 50 kgs. of lahan was also sealed. The lahan was got tested from the Excise Inspector, who found the same to be partly distilled lahan fit for further distillation of illicit liquor. The components of the working still were taken into possession; rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and after completion of 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 PW-1 ASI Gurdev Singh, PW-2 Exercise Inspector Rajinder Singh and PW-3 HC Amar Singh, Affidavits of formal witnesses were also tendered. 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 and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. He denied those circumstances and stated that he had been taken from his house and falsely implicated in this case. 5. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. He denied those circumstances and stated that he had been taken from his house and falsely implicated in this case. In defence he examined Harpal Singh Sarpanch DW-1 and Bhupinder Singh Lambardar DW-2. 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 of Punjab 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 Gurdev Singh and HC Amar Singh, PW-1 and PW-3 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, 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 reasonsibility 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 1.5.1984. In 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, Ludhiana 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. 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, Ludhiana, 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 the notice, he shall not be entitled to the benefit of probation and shall serve the sentence awarded to him. Petition allowed.