CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Bhag Singh @ Bhagga vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 March 1985 · Citation: (1985) 03 P&H CK 0019

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.P.S.Sandhu, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 873 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ in default R.I. for one month under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal vide his orders dated 31.10.1983 and 3.11.1983. The appeal was carried to the Court of Session where it failed substantially inasmuch as that the sentence of fine was reduced from Rs.500/ to Rs.200/, in default R.I. for 15 days. The petitioner came up in revision to this Court. The same was admitted by B.S. Yadav, J. vide his order dated 31.5.1984.

2.

The police party headed by S.H.O. Amar Nath on secret information raided the house of the petitioner. He was found distilling illicit liquor by way of a working still. The components of the working still were taken into possession after cooling the same. Lahan was found in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3.

The prosecution evidence consists of the official witnesses only.

4.

Admittedly, it was case of a secret information, but the police people did not care to join any independent person for the reasons best known to them. I have gone through the evidence of PWs with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. There are number of discrepancies in the statements of the official witnesses regarding the timing of the receipt of the secret information, collection of the people at the spot, distance of the premises of the petitioner from the G.T. Road, time and place of sealing of the drum containing Lahan etc. etc. In view of the fact that no independent witness was joined by the prosecution although there was ample opportunity for the same and in view of the aforesaid discrepancies, I do not think it would be safe to allow the conviction of the petitioner to say. Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioner.

Revision allowed.