Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 871 (PNJ)

Harvinder Pal Singla v. U. T. Chandigarh

2001-08-17

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has been booked in FIR No. 153 dated 25.7.2001 at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, for offence under Sections 16/1/14 of Excise Act and Sections 467/468/471/120-B IPC and Section 63 of Copy Right Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sukhwinder Singh, ASI, received a telephonic message on the night intervening 24/25.7.2001 in the Police Station from the control room that an oil tanker in plot No. 182/68, Industrial Area, Phase I, had caught fire. Accordingly, he alongwith other police officials went to the spot but nobody was found present there. The fire was extinguished by the officials of the fire brigade and left the place after extinguishing the fire. The ASI inspected the spot and found that illicit liquor in huge quantity was lying in pouches in various plastic bags. He summoned Ranbir Singh, Head Constable, Kitab Ram, Constable No. 252 and Constable Darshan Lal No. 595 at the spot for verification. On verification, it was found that there were 8 bags containing pouches of liquor, each containing 950 plastic pouches and each pouch contained 750 ml. of liquor, 5 plastic bags each containing 100 pouches of the capacity of 375 ml. of liquor, 7 bags, each containing 200 pouches of liquor, each containing 180 ml. of liquor make `Hero, 14 plastic bags, each bag containing 200 pouches each weighing 180 ml. of liquor of the brand of Gulab and 62 bags of plastic, each containing 200 pouches of liquor having 180 ml. One sample from each of 96 bags was taken out and the remaining liquor was put in plastic bags. The samples and the bags were separately sealed and were taken into possession vide recovery memo. On verification, it was found that one Singla Liquor Contractor was the owner. Accordingly, FIR was registered under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 25.7.2001, investigation was handed over to Karnail Singh, Sub Inspector. The samples and the bags were separately sealed and were taken into possession vide recovery memo. On verification, it was found that one Singla Liquor Contractor was the owner. Accordingly, FIR was registered under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 25.7.2001, investigation was handed over to Karnail Singh, Sub Inspector. He took into possession 32 rolls of plastic label of Murthal No. 1 make, 19 rolls of plastic label of Madura country liquor make, 25 rolls of plastic label of P.K.I. No. 1 make, 7 rolls of plastic label of Gulab country liquor make, 2 rolls of plastic label of Hero Whisky, 13 plastic rolls of Hero No. 1 country liquor, 8 rolls of plastic label of All Parri Country Liquor make, 1 roll of plastic label of Saudi make and 1 roll of plastic label and Angering country liquor make. He also took into possession two bags containing labels of Milado XXX Ram, Malwa No. 1 and Santra country liquor. He further took into possession one punching machine. He also took into possession Tanker No. MP- 01-PA-6737 containing about 8000/9000 litres of rectified spirit. Out of this Tanker, one bottle of rectified spirit was taken as sample. 3. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over the Sohan Lal, ASI, on the same day, who took into possession 5 filling machines with steel pots. Further investigation was handed over to ASI Jai Bhagwan, who took into possession 85 bags of empty bottles on the same day i.e. 25.7.2001. He also found a tank containing rectified spirit out of which five litres of rectified spirit was taken out as sample and the remaining spirit was filled in four plastic drums and were taken into possession after sealing the same. Then investigation was handed over to SI Gulshan Kumar on the same day, who took into possession 14 drums containing rectified spirit out of which 13 drums were full of rectified spirit whereas the 14th drum was half. All the drums were taken into possession after sealing them. 4. Then investigation was handed over to SI Gulshan Kumar on the same day, who took into possession 14 drums containing rectified spirit out of which 13 drums were full of rectified spirit whereas the 14th drum was half. All the drums were taken into possession after sealing them. 4. During investigation, the statement of Neeraj Bajaj was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he alongwith Krishan Bajaj, Ritu Bajaj and Deepa Bajaj was owner of Industrial Shed No. 182/68, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh and it was leased out by them to Harvinder Pal Singla, the present petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 24.4.2001 at a monthly rent of Rs. 48,000/- and the rent for the month of July 2001 had been paid by him by way of cheque. He further stated that on 26.7.2001, the petitioner contacted him and told that he was in trouble as police had recovered certain materials from his Industrial shed and as such, requested him that the lease deed may be changed but Neeraj Bajaj did not accede to his request. He also assured Neeraj Bajaj that he was known to some Magistrate and could get the lease deed or sublet lease deed prepared in the back date but he (Neeraj Bajaj) did not agree to it. Therefore, subsequently offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 63 of the Copy Right Act were added. 5. I have heard Sh. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, assisted by Sh. Bipan Ghai, Advocate, Sh. Gautam Dutt, Counsel for U.T. and carefully gone through the file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not in possession of the said plot at the time of raid but it was in possession of one Avtar Singh to whom he had given on lease. He further contended that he was a liquor contractor and had kept the liquor there. At best he had violated the terms of licence, for which he was liable under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act which is bailable and he is not liable for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 63 of Copy Right Act. He further contended that he was a liquor contractor and had kept the liquor there. At best he had violated the terms of licence, for which he was liable under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act which is bailable and he is not liable for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 63 of Copy Right Act. On the other hand, counsel for U.T. contented that huge quantity of illicit liquor and spirit had been recovered from the spot and various labels alongwith machines had been recovered and as such, it appears that the petitioner manufactured different fake brands and sold the same in the market as genuine brands. He further contended that the lease deed in favour of Avtar Singh dated 9.7.2001, Annexure P-2, had been created afterwards in order to hoodwink the police and he even wanted to change the lease deed which was in his name on behalf of Neeraj Bajaj etc. and for this purpose he had approached Neeraj Bajaj but he did not agree, although the petitioner had told him that he knew certain Magistrates and could get the lease deed changed in the back date. This, according to the counsel for the U.T., showed the criminal mind of the petitioner and further that he had manufactured lease deed dated 9.7.2001 afterwards in order to avoid liability. He further contended that the investigation is in progress and the custodial interrogation is necessary in public interest to determine the modus-operandi of the petitioner who manufactured illicit liquor under different brands. He further contended that the petitioner is playing with the lives of the people and as such, there is no question that anticipatory bail should be allowed to him. It has been observed in Er. K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 419 that if public interest requires detention of citizen in custody for purpose of investigation, the anticipatory bail should be declined. It has been further stated in R.K. Ranga v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 611 by this court that remedy of anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy provided under law and has to be resorted only in exceptional cases and if special grounds are made out. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner with regard to recovery of a factory indulging in manufacturing of illicit liquor under various brands are serious. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner with regard to recovery of a factory indulging in manufacturing of illicit liquor under various brands are serious. Such a substance, which is being manufactured by the petitioner could create havoc with the lives of the people after consumption. Hence, there is no justification to release him on anticipatory bail. 7. Therefore, it is rejected. However, nothing said or observed here will influence the mind of the trial Court in deciding the case on merits.