Achhar Singh vs The State

P.D. Sharma, J.—Achhar Singh aged 50 years of village Kot Mujlas district Gurdaspur, was convicted u/s 61(1)(a) read with section 68-A of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and payment of a fine of Rs. 10/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one week. His appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, remained unsuccessful. He has come up in revision against this order. The charge against him was that he on or about the 7th September, 1960, at Kot Mujlas, possessed an adhia containing 13 onces of illicit liquor knowing the same to be of illicit origin, and further that he before the commission of the said offence had once been convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, on 26th March, 1954, u/s 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment, which on appeal was reduced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment and that this conviction was still in force.

The prosecution alleged that Ujjagar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police (P.W. 4), accompanied with Shangara Singh (P.W. 3) of Batala and Dalbir Singh lambardar of Kot Mujlas, went to the house of the accused-petitioner and interrogated him, as a result of which he got recovered an adhia containing liquor from the sarkanas located within his haveli. The contents of adhia on examination by the Chemical Examiner were found to be liquor of illicit origin.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and added that he had been involved in a false case.

The prosecution produced Ujjagar Singh (P.W. 4) and Shangara Singh (P.W. 3) only in support of the fact that it was on the pointing out of the accused-petitioner that the illicit liquor was recovered. Dalbir Singh lambardar was dropped and probably for the reason that he had been won over. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court thought it fit to place reliance on the statements of the above two witnesses in coming to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner possessed the illicit liquor. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner strenously contended that the statement of Shangara Singh (P.W. 3) should not have been depended upon as he was a stock police witness and that he accompanied the Sub-Inspector right from Batala upto the place of occurrence. He also severely criticised the prosecution for not producing Dalbir Singh in the witness box. According to him, it was not that Dalbir Singh had been won over but that he was not prepared to endorse the false story put up by the prosecution. I was impressed by his argument. The Sub Inspector has yet to explain as to why he thought it proper to bring Shangara Singh (P.W. 3) from Batala up to this village, especially when this person had appeared as a prosecution witness in more than two or three cases. His act in associating Shangara Singh in the raid made his own conduct suspicious. It was as late as 1934 that Niamatullah, J., while delivering judgment in the case, Sadlu Vs. Emperor, was pleased to observe that:

Where respectable persons can be found in the neighbourhood, and the police officer making a search takes with him persons whose respectability is questionable or who come from a distant locality inference is that he was prompted by a desire to have such witnesses as would be easily persuaded to support any story which he might put forward.

I am in respectful agreement with his views-If for argument sake it may be taken for granted that it was on the accused petitioner''s pointing out that the illicit liquor was recovered by the police, then even the charge against him does not stand substantiated. The defence suggested that the haveli from where the illicit liquor is said to have been recovered was owned and possessed by the accused-petitioner and his four brothers. The prosecution has not controverted this fact. It may be that the accused-petitioner knew that the illicit liquor was the re in the haveli, but this fact alone is not enough to say that he was in possession thereof. In the circumstances it will indeed be extremely doubtful to say that the illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner. He should have been acquitted on this score.

For the above reasons the revision petition is accepted, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the accused-petitioner u/s 61(1)(a) read with section 68-A of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- or in default to further undergo one week''s rigorous imprisonment is set aside and he is acquitted.