Pamma Singh v. State of Punjab

He was feeding fire in the hearth. He, however, succeeded in running away. The working still was dismantled and cooled down. The components of the working still, were taken into possession, and, from the illicit liquor, which was lying, in the Can, a sample of 180 mls was separated and the remaining liquor, on measurement, came to be 5 bottles of 750 mls each. On reaching the Police Station, the case property, was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable. The lahan, was got tested, from the Excise Inspector. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The accused, was arrested, on 23.02.02. After the completion of investigation, the accused, was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused, was supplied Criminal Revision No. 3302 of 2009 3 the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

4. Charge under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ved Parkash, Excise Inspector (PW1), who tested the contents of the container, and found that the same was containing lahan, partially distilled and fit for further distillation, Kewal Singh, Head Constable (PW2), Rachhpal Masih, Constable (PW3), Gurdev Singh, Head Constable (PW4), and, Darshan Lal, Head Constable (PW5), the Investigating Officer.

6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, examined Kammo Bai (DW1), and Mohinder Singh, Additional Moharrir Head Constable (DW2), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgement dated 02.12.09. Criminal Revision No. 3302 of 2009 4

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

10. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory. He further submitted that the case property, was never produced, in the Court. He further submitted that, no report, was recorded, in the Roznamcha, while going for the raid. He further submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration the evidence, produced by the prosecution, in its proper perspective, and, as such, wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.

12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappraise and reappreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that there is complete misreading or misappreciation of the same, and some material piece of evidence was ignored, while deciding the case. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Ved Parkash, Excise Inspector (PW1), Kewal Singh, Head Constable (PW2), Rachhpal Masih, Constable (PW3), Gurdev Singh, Head Constable (PW4), and, Darshan Lal, Head Constable Criminal Revision No. 3302 of 2009 5 (PW5), the Investigating Officer, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of the consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. The Courts below, were, thus, right in placing reliance, on the evidence, produced by the prosecution, for recording conviction. There was neither any misreading of evidence, nor misappreciation thereof, nor any material piece of evidence was ignored. The judgements of the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.02.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, is upheld.

14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgement.

16.02.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE