Amrik Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab Singh Gill, J.

By virtue of the present revision petition, Amrik Singh petitioner assails the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 13.7.1988 and that of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon dated 21.11.1987. The learned Judicial Magistrate Jagraon held the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,200/ and in default payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was apprehended by a police party headed by Head Constable Sarabjit Singh on suspicion on 13.3.1984 and a tube containing illicit liquor was recovered from his possession. A simple of 180 Mls. was drawn and the remaining liquor on measurement came to be 70 bottles of 750 Mls. each. The investigation in the case was completed and the petitioner was challaned.

The petitioner abjured guilt and denied having committed the offence with which he stood charged.

I have heard Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General Punjab and perused the paper book.

The admitted facts in this case are that the police party passed through Sidhwan Bet and there are shops and bus stand at a little distance. Village Bharowal was also at a short distance from the place of recovery. The police party was going for patrolling and excise checking. Had the Investigating Officer made some earnest endeavours, he could have joined some independent witness in the raiding party but he did not do so. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the official witnesses are as good witnesses as any other witness from the public but where the Investigating Officer had ample opportunity to coopt independent witness but he had not done so, this makes the prosecution story doubtful. Obviously, the official witnesses are interested in the success of the case.

Viewed in the light of the fact that no independent witness has been joined to lend corroborative evidence to the testimony of the official witnesses, the contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses regarding bringing of bottle, bucket and cans by whom and the distance between village Bharowal and the place of recovery assume significance.

Furthermore, the cycle on which is the petitioner is alleged to be carrying contraband article has not been produced in the Court and this also reflects upon the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

Another snag in the prosecution case is that P.W. 2 who is an official witness did not remember as to whether the colour of the cans was red or green. Even, this witness was unable to tell as to whether lid on the can was towards inner side or towards outer side. At place where time 6.15 A.M. was recorded on Ex. PC/1 which is the formal F.I.R., there was some overwriting. All these infirmities in the prosecution case also lend support to the plea of the petitioner regarding his false implication in the case.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is that regarding the false implication of the petitioner and other persons, complaint exhibit D1 was made on 13.3.1984, the day on which the petitioner is alleged to have been arrested in this case. This fact also weakens the prosecution case.

As already observed, the facts and circumstances in this case clearly establish that the case against the petitioner is not free from reasonable doubt. Therefore, by giving him benefit of reasonable doubt, he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The revision petition is consequently accepted and the impugned judgments are set aside.

The petitioner shall stand discharged from his personal bonds and surety bonds.