Bahadur vs State

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Bahadur Singh, accusedpetitioner, dissatisfied with the judgment dated July 18, 1988, passed by Shri E.S. Teji, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, affirming the conviction and sentence under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, recorded by Shri Mohinder Singh, SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, whereby the accusedpetitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, has preferred this criminal revision. The co accoused, namely Billu Ram and Ram Kumar were, however, acquitted.

On April 27, 1984, SubInspector Balbir Singh along with other police officials, after traffic checking, intercepted the accusedpetitioner, who was driving the leter rehra (cart) in the area of road leading to village Nandgarh Kotra. On checking, 30 boxes containing 12 bottles each of country liquor were recovered. 180 Mls. of liquor was separated by way of sample from each bottle. The bottles and the samples, after they were sealed with the seal mark `BS'' were taken into possession vide recovery Memo. Exhibit PA. Thereafter, on the basis of the ruqa sent by the Investigating Officer, the case was registered. On the completion of the investigation, the petitioner along with Billu Ram and Ram Kumar were challaned. All the three were chargesheeted under section 61(1)(a), read with section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act. They all claimed trial by not pleading not guilty to the charge.

The Courts below after considering the case set up by the petitioner had found him guilty on the strength of the evidence brought on the record.

I have gone through the records. Mr. Devender Kumar, Assistant Advocate General Punjab, was also heard.

The main challenge in this case is that the coaccused have been acquitted by the trial Court and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable. The petitioner is a cartdriver. He is a labourer. He was engaged by Billu Ram and Ram Kumar for transportation of liquorbottles from the wholesale vend to the retailsale liquor vend and therefore he should be given the benefit of doubt. There is no substance in it. All the prosecution witnesses have consistently stated about the recovery of 30 boxes of liquor from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was certainly in conscious possession of 30 boxes containing the liquorbottles. Thus, he cannot escape the liability under the cover that he was a labourer or a cartdriver and that he was transporting the bottles at the behest of the contractors. He should have been vigilant enough while transporting these bottles from one place to another without having a valid permit.

The case of the petitioner has been considered especially in the light of the evidence brought against the petitioner and his coaccused. Since there was no convincing evidence against Billu Ram and Ram Kumar as above, rather it was the petitioner who was found in conscious possession of the liquor, therefore, his case does not stand at par with his coaccused.

Having analysed the facts and circumstances of case, it being a case of huge recovery, I am of the view that it cannot be planted easily. The gravamen of the charge is the possession of 30 boxes, each containing 12 bottles of countrymade liquor. Thus, I do not find any justification in interfering with the conviction recorded against the petitioner. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. The bailbonds of the accusedpetitioner also stand cancelled and he must surrender to serve the remaining period of his sentence.