High Courts

Bhim Sain vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 August 1998 · Citation: (1998) 4 RCR(Criminal) 618

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.L.Singhal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 740 of 1998
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

10 paragraphs · 1,035 words

M.L. Singhal, J.

1.

Crl. Rev. No. 740 of 1998 and Crl. Rev. No. 794 of 1998 are the offshoot of the same judgment and order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur on 9.9.97 in case FIR No. 19 of 15.3.96 under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act of PS Longowal, convicting petitioners Bhim Sain, Karnail Singh, Balbir Singh and Harbans Singh under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing them to undergo RI for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months each and the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 14.7.1998 conviction and sentence.

2.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.3.96 at about 9.30 p.m, ASI Gurdip Singh, Incharge, Police Post Cheema along with HC Surinder Singh, HC Jagdish Rai, PHG Satnam Singh and PHG Misra Singh was present laying naka on the pucca road leading from village Tolewal to village Dharamgarh. Jeep No. DL4CC8254 came from the side of village Dharamgarh. Torch light was flashed on that jeep signalling it to stop. Jeep was stopped. Petitioner Harbans Singh was driving the jeep. Petitioner Balbir Singh was sitting by the side of the driver on the front seat. Petitioner Bhim Sain was sitting on the rear seat on driver side. Petitioner Karnail Singh was sitting on the rear seat opposite to Bhim Sain. Search of jeep was carried out. Four cartons containing 48 bottles in all, of countrymade (licit) liquor marked "Patiala Gulab" were found lying between the rear seats of the jeep. 180 mls. each was taken out as sample from each of the 48 bottles of liquor. Samples and the bottles were sealed at the spot. Samples and bottles were taken into possession. Rough site plan Ex.PE was prepared at the spot. Ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the police station for the registration of the case against the accused on the basis of which case FIR No. 19 was registered at PS Longowal on 15.3.96 under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. Samples were sent to the chemical examiner for chemical examination. Chemical examiner reported vide report Ex.PK that the samples contained country liquor. After investigation, accused were challaned. Accused were charged under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act by the learned Magistrate. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate found the charge under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as indicated above. Their appeal to the court of Sessions met failure.

3.

Feeling that they have been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the courts below, Bhim Sain, Balbir Singh, Harbans Singh have come up in revision to this Court (Crl. Rev. 740 of 1998). Having felt that he has been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the two courts below, Karnail Singh has come up in revision to this Court (Crl. Rev. 794 of 1998).

4.

I have heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were implicated falsely by ASI Gurdip Singh. ASI Gurdip Singh demanded cooler free of cost from Bhim Sain. Karnail Singh was running STD/PCO. Some calls had been made by the police of police post Cheema on that STD/PCO. Payment was outstanding which was not made. Harbans Singh was driver on the jeep of Binder Singh of village Dharamgarh. ASI Gurdip Singh was asking for jeep on begar from Harbans Singh and Balbir Singh. They refused to oblige, hence their false implication. Karnail Singh and Harbans Singh appeared in their defence as their own witnesses and made statements on oath to the said effect. In addition to them, Piara Singh DW4, Amrik Singh DW5 were examined. Constable Nirmal Kumar DW1 was also examined. In my opinion, defence version was considered by the two courts below correctly, properly and justifiably rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some official from the office of chemical examiner should have been produced to prove that samples remained intact and untampered with from the date of their receipt till the date of their examination. Suffice it to say, in the report of the chemical examiner, there is clear mention that so long as the samples remained unanalysed in the office of the chemical examiner, they remained untampered with.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there should have been independent witness to support the recovery of liquor from the possession of Bhim Sain, Karnail Singh, Balbir Singh and Harbans Singh that day from the said jeep. Suffice it to say, there is no reason to disbelieve ASI Gurdip Singh, HC Surinder Singh, etc. PWs. No doubt they are police officials but there is no proof of any animus against them. They have been fully consistent in their statements and the defence could create no dent in their statements. In my opinion, petitioners were justifiably convicted by the two courts below.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are first offenders. They have been leading good course of conduct before. It is first lapse on their part from the path of rectitude. One opportunity should be given to them so that they reform themselves. They have further submitted that there is no charge that it was illicit liquor. In my opinion, the accused should be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on their furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ each for a period of 2 years. It is ordered accordingly. During this period, they shall undertake to be of good behaviour and keep peace. They shall pay Rs. 3,000/ each as compensation to the State of Punjab in the Excise Department. Fine imposed upon them by the learned Magistrate will be cost of proceedings to the State of Punjab.

8.

Subject to the modification in the sentence as suggested above, these revisions fail and are dismissed.

Revisions dismissed.