Balwant Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On September 13, 1982 Assistant Sub Inspector Rameshwar Parshad was present in the area of village Sakra along with other police officials when he received secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by working a still in his fields. On this information a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of a case and the field of the petitioner was raided where he was caught red handed, distilling illicit liquor. He was having a receiving bottle in his hand at the time of his apprehension. The still was cooled and dismantled and articles of still were seized vide a recovery memo which also contained a drum, used as a boiler, having 12 kilograms of lahan. Sample was separated from the receiver bottle which was got chemically examined. The contents of the drum were tested by the Excise Inspector and after completion of the investigation the petitioner was chargesheeted for an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act.

At trial the prosecution examined Ram Kumar Excise Inspector PW 1, Rameshwar Parshad Sub Inspector PW 2 and Hukam Singh PW 3. Affidavits of formal witnesses were also tendered in evidence.

When examined under Section 313 CrPC the petitioner denied all the allegations against him and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case. One Surta chowkidar was examined in defence. The learned trial Court after perusing the evidence and hearing the parties held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 30.5.1986 the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. He has now filed the present revision petition.

I have heard Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and have perused the record.

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the prosecution case rested on the testimony of only two officials who had ample opportunity to join independent witnesses but the investigating officer did not take anyone into confidence before conducting raid. As such no reliance could be placed on his testimony and that of his subordinate. It was urged that in the instant case the investigating officer had received secret information and admittedly independent witnesses were available who could be joined but none of them was called. A reference was made to the statement of PW 2, Sub Inspector Rameshwar Parshad who, in his cross examination, deposed that he received secret information against the petitioner at about 5.30 a.m. near village Sakra and at that time people were going to their fields. They were, however, not asked to join the raiding party nor the Sarpanch or Lambardar was called from the village. Only Surta chowkidar met him and he was asked to accompany to the place of raid but he refused. He was, therefore, sent with a ruqa to the police station. Surta appeared as DW 1 and denied that he ever refused to join the police party when the police party was going to raid the field of the petitioner. He denied that the petitioner was ever captured distilling illicit liquor.

The evidence on record shows that the raiding party was organised on receipt of secret information and thereafter various persons met the investigating officer but none of them was taken into confidence by the investigating officer. The chowkidar who was alleged to have been contacted by the investigating officer denied that he ever refused to join the raiding party or that he was sent with a ruqa. The evidence of the official witnesses, thus, lacks corroboration from any independent source. The conduct of the investigating officer is also suspicious in not taking anyone into confidence before proceeding to the place of raid and in these circumstances it cannot be said that charge against the petitioner was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Similar view was expressed in the case of Ghuk Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1984(2) CLR 218.

For the foregoing reasons I allow this petition; set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. Fine, if paid, would be refunded to him.