Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1151 (PNJ)

Labh Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-10-30

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Labh Singh son of Chuhar Singh against the order dated August 21, 1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul whereby he has been convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated June 1, 1989. 2. The prosecution case is that on March 1, 1983 one ASI Gurcharan Singh alongwith Head Constable Baldev Singh, Constable Jagdev Singh, Gobind Ram and Ranjit Singh and Excise Inspector Darbara Singh were on exercise checking duty and while they were presented at village Peerkot, near Waterworks building, then the aforesaid ASI received a secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by means of working still in his residential house and if raid was conducted, the recovery could be effected. On receipt of aforesaid secret information, a ruqa Ex.APA was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. Thereafter, the raiding party conducted a raid on the house of the petitioner. On investigation, a challan was presented. The petitioner has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. I have heard Shri T.S. Sangha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Sharma, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record. 4. Shri T.S. Sangha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the present case was not a case of chance recovery but a case where an organised raid was conducted on the house of the petitioner as per the prosecution. Under these circumstances, it has been pointed out that an independent witness, namely, Jabra Singh is alleged to have been associated with the aforesaid raiding party. However, aforesaid Jabra Singh never supported the prosecution version and was rather produced as defence witness as DW2 by the petitioner. He has not only contradicted the prosecution version but also submitted that although the petitioner was arrested from his house but no recovery was effected by the police and there was on working still being run by him as alleged by the prosecution. He has not only contradicted the prosecution version but also submitted that although the petitioner was arrested from his house but no recovery was effected by the police and there was on working still being run by him as alleged by the prosecution. Shri Sangha has pointed out that the prosecution has merely relied upon the statements of the official witnesses namely, the statement of ASI Gurcharan Singh who has appeared as PW1 and on the statement of Excise Inspector who has also appeared as PW-3. Shri Sangha has further pointed out that in the statement of aforesaid witnesses there are major discrepancies. Shri Sangha has further pointed out that in the case of an organised raid it was not proper to reply upon the sole testimony of the official witnesses alone. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and I am of the view that the broad proposition as canvassed by Shri Sangha to the effect that no conviction can be ordered on the sole testimony of official witnesses cannot be accepted. However, in such a situation, where the police party had an occasion to associate with it an independent witness but has not done so or the aforesaid independent witnesses, though originally joined by the raiding party have not supported the prosecution version, it would put the Court on a greater caution while sifting the evidence of such official witnesses. 6. In the present case, I find that not only Jabra Singh has given his counter version but also further there are major discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses. 7. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, the present revision petition is allowed and after setting aside the judgments of the Courts below, I order that the present petitioner shall be acquitted of the charge against him. Petition allowed.