Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 487 (PNJ)

Bachittar Singh @ Gareebu v. State of Punjab

2000-05-05

A.S.GARG

body2000
JUDGMENT A.S. Garg, J. - On 2.1.1983, HC Darshan Singh along with HC Gurdev Singh and other police officials was present near State Bank of Patiala, at Chauke where he received a secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still in his fields. Ruqa Ex.PB was sent to the police station for registration of a case and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PB/1 under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act was recorded. The police party after joining Inder Singh Chowkidar with the police party, raided the fields of the accused where he was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. The working still was cooled down and dismantled. The liquor was being distilled in a plastic container. The sample was taken out of the said container. The sample, boiler drum and the plastic container were duly sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC along with other components of the working still. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PE the petitioner was prosecuted and was tried. 2. On the testimony of HC Darshan Singh, PW.2 (now Assistant Sub Inspector) and HC Gurdev Singh, PW.3, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was maintained. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the independent witness Inder Singh joined by the police with the raiding party has not been examined and, therefore, the evidence of police officials, who are interested in the success of the prosecution case, cannot be said to be sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty. It was being claimed that the illicit liquor was being distilled in the field of Bachittar Singh and, therefore, the police party raided his field and recovery was effected from his field. However, during the course of arguments it transpired that Bachittar Singh petitioner did not have any land. It was being claimed that the illicit liquor was being distilled in the field of Bachittar Singh and, therefore, the police party raided his field and recovery was effected from his field. However, during the course of arguments it transpired that Bachittar Singh petitioner did not have any land. It was held by the trial Magistrate as well as by the learned lower appellate Court that Bachittar Singh petitioner had taken the field of Fatta Singh and, therefore, the field where from the recovery of illicit liquor and working still was effected did not actually belong to the petitioner but to one Fatta Singh. In such circumstances, it is a correct and justified claim of the petitioner that Fatta Singh will not allow the petitioner to distill illicit liquor in his field. The police did not find any lease deed in favour of the petitioner that he took the field of Fatta Singh on lease nor is there any entry in the Khasra Girdawri or any other relevant record to show that the petitioner occupied the land in question. The fact that the field from where the recovery of working still was effected does not belong to the petitioner, would cast grave doubt about the recovery itself. Besides this there are some discrepancies in the statements of the police officials on important points. 4. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner and by giving the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. 5. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. Revision allowed.