Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

On 12th August, 1983, SI Prem Singh got secret information that the petitioner indulged in distillation of illicit liquor. A rukka was sent to the police station for the registration of a case. Police party then raided the place about which the information had been given. The petitioner was found present and was apprehended. On interrogation, the petitioner made a disclosure statement that he kept concealed three drums of lahan and a plastic can containing 25 bottles of illicit liquor together with implements for distillation of illicit liquor and that he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the petitioner was taken to the stated place and the said articles were got recovered. Lahan in the drums was got tested from Excise Inspector and his report was obtained. A sample of illicit liquor was taken from the can and both the remaining illicit liquor in can and that in the sample were separately sealed. The sample was got tested from the Chemical Examiner whose report found it to be illicit liquor.

A report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted and after going through the papers, charge under Section (6)(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act was framed. The prosecution examined PW I SI Prem Singh and PW 2 Excise Inspector Pawan Kumar. The prosecution version was supported by both the witnesses. The prosecution also tendered in evidence two affidavits, Ex. P.G & P,H. of Constable Jung Singh and Head Constable Mithu Singh, respectively. Ex. P,F. is the report of the Chemical Examiner.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code, the petitioner denied his guilt and examined DW1 Avtar Singh and DW 2 Karnail Singh in his defence.

The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution as well as that of the defence, found the petitioner guilty under the said Section and sentenced the petitioner to, undergo RI for 8 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo RI for 2 months., The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before the Appellate Court but could not succeed and his appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner has challenged the judgments of the Courts below in this Revision, which is pending since 17th October, 1985 when it was admitted and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.

The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the verification on the affidavits is not in accordance with law. It has been further urged that no independent witness was joined. Some contradictions in the statements of PW have also been highlighted.

Learned counsel for the respondent lays stress on the principle that police witnesses stand on the same footing as public witnesses and their statements have to be appreciated by the same measure.

I have heard both the parties and have gone through the trial Court file. The recovery is said to have taken place on 12th August, 1983 and since then, the proceedings have been pending in one way or the other in spite of lapse of about 6 years thereafter. This fact alone is sufficient in my view to quash the proceedings according to the latest view of the Courts taking into consideration the principles of speedy trial.

Apart from the above factor, I find that the 3 drums according to the statement of PW 2 Shri Pawan Kumar, Excise Inspector were separately tested. After testing each of the drums, no separate note appears to have been taken. After the said contents of lahan of the 3 drums were tested, report Ex PF was made and this fact is clear from the report itself, The procedure adopted by PW2 Pawan Kumar, Excise Inspector is not proper. It is not believable that test of the contents of each drum would exactly lead to the same conclusion. Keeping Lahan in separate drums can be expected only when Lahan is sought to be prepared separately in each of the drums and it does not look to be probable that somebody or at worst the petitioner prepared Lahan at one point of time and put the same in 3 separate drums. The result of test of Lahan in each drum is not likely to be exactly the same. Consequently, implicit reliance cannot be placed on test report Ex PF.

So far as the Chemical Examiner''s report is concerned, its authenticity depends upon the affidavits Ex. PG & PH of Constable Jung Singh and Head Constable Mithu Singh. The law requires that the verification of the affidavit has to be in that firm of admitting truth of the contents thereof either on depondent''s own knowledge or on information believed by him to be correct. Both these affidavits are based on the personal knowledge of the depondents and in the verification thereof, it is not mentioned that the contents thereof are verified to be true on personal knowledge. In this view of the matter, the defective verification of these affidavits takes away the link evidence.

In view of the discussion above, this petition is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner held by both the Courts below ale set aside and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charges. Fine, if paid, be refunded.