Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 642 (PNJ)

Chand Singh @ Tidi v. State Of Punjab

2005-05-25

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is a criminal revision against the judgment dated 23.1.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, challenging dismissal of appeal against the judgment dated 13.3.1990 of the trial Magistrate, whereby petitioner Chand Singh @ Tidi was convicted under Section 61.1(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; or in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for keeping in his possession 50 bottles of illicit liquor. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Head Constable Mangal Singh, who was on patrol duty, took the petitioner into his custody on 27.6.1988, as he was carrying a gunny bag. On search of the gunny bag, it contained a tube with 37500 MLs. of illicit liquor. 180 MLs. was separated as a sample. The sample and the remaining liquor were sealed with seal mark `MS. FIR, Ex. PB/1, was registered on the basis of a ruqa, Ex.PB, sent by Head Constable Mangal Singh to the Police Station Tarn Taran. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial. 3. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Head Constable Mangal Singh (PW-1) and Constable Bawa Singh (PW-2). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that affidavits, Ex.PE and Ex.PF, do not bear the seal of the Court. Affidavits are defective. They should not be taken into consideration. He further stated that no independent witness was joined, though the recovery was made during the day time. 5. Learned Counsel for the State has stated that testimony of Head Constable Mangal Singh (PW-1) and Constable Bawa Singh (PW-2) could not be shattered in cross-examinations. The report, Ex.PD of the Chemical Examiner and affidavits, Ex. PE, if MHC Lekh Raj and Ex.PF of Constable Malkiat Singh are sufficient to prove the prosecution case. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State and perused the record carefully. 7. Quantity of liquor recovered is very large. It could not have falsely implanted on the petitioner. Affidavits, Ex.PE and Ex.PF, which are not bearing the seal of the Court, is only a technical infirmity. Otherwise, the affidavits do not have any effect. Link evidence is complete. 7. Quantity of liquor recovered is very large. It could not have falsely implanted on the petitioner. Affidavits, Ex.PE and Ex.PF, which are not bearing the seal of the Court, is only a technical infirmity. Otherwise, the affidavits do not have any effect. Link evidence is complete. Testimony of Head Constable Mangal Singh (PW-1) and Constable Bawa Singh (PW-2) inspire confidence. They corroborate each other on material particulars. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 23.1.1991 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar qua the conviction of the appellant. 9. Conviction of the petitioner is sustained. Illicit liquor was recovered from the petitioner on 27.6.1988. Criminal Revision in this Court was filed on 8.2.1991. The sword of conviction is hanging on the head of the petitioner for the last 14 years. This itself is a punishment. Petitioner has undergone a substantial part of his sentence. Sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. With the above observations and modification of the sentence, appeal is dismissed.