Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.4.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the judgment of conviction dated

19.4.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba -2- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2002. Bakala, convicting the petitioner under Sections 61 (1) (a) and 61 (1) ( c) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short `the Act') was upheld and the sentenced order dated 19.4.2004 passed by the trial Court was modified reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act from one and a half years to one year. The trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act. Under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on

13.6.2000, a police party headed by Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh, while on patrol duty, after receiving a secret information against the accused-petitioner that he was distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still in Peer Orchard on the Western side of Village Chattiwind and a raid there could lead to recovery of illicit liquor, raided the said place. At the time of raid, the petitioner as found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. At that time, the petitioner was feeding fire in the hearth of working still. The petitioner was apprehended. The working still -3- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2002. was dismantled. A Can containing illicit liquor was found near the working still. Out of the Can-receiver, 180 Mls of illicit liquor was separated as sample and the remaining illicit liquor on measurement was found to be 9-3/4 bottles. All the components of the working still including the `lahan' and illicit liquor were taken into possession. After completion of investigation and on receipt report of the Chemical Examiner, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. The petitioner was charged under Sections 61(1)(a), 61 (1) (b) and 61 (1) ( c ) of the Act. He did not plead guilty to the charge sheet and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined E.I Balwinder Singh (P.W.1), Head Constable Mukhtiar Singh (P.W.2), Head Constable Baljit Singh (P.W.3) and Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh (P.W.4), Constable Jagir Singh (P.W.5). The report of the Chemical Examiner was tendered into evidence, which is Exhibit P.X. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. In defence, the petitioner examined Tara Singh (D.W.1). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. At the outset, it may be stated that as `lahan' was not -4- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2002. produced by the prosecution in the Court, the trial Court did not convict the petitioner under Section 61(1)(b) of the Act. However, for non-production of `Lahan' in the Court, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. The evidence led by the prosecution in this case is consisted of the official witnesses, but it does not cast any doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution case. Both Mukhtiar Singh (P.W.2) and Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh (P.W.4), who have been examined by the prosecution in support of the recovery of working still, `lahan' and illicit liquor from the petitioner, have given a consistent version of the same. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that raid in this case was conducted on the basis of secret information and, therefore, it was incumbent for the raiding party to join some independent person to witness the recovery. After giving a careful thought to this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance therein. Nowadays, no independent witness is prepared to join the police party in such cases, where stringent punishment is prescribed under the Act, and to incur the wrath of the accused for all times to come. The accused-petitioner was apprehended by the police officials while distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still in discharge of their official duties. They had no enmity with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any flaw in the prosecution case, which otherwise stands -5- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2002. proved on record. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case. As noticed above, the lower appellate Court has already reduced the sentence of petitioner under Section 61 (1) ( c ) of the Act from rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. March 12,2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE