Chanan Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Chanan Singh revision petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by Shri G.S. Dhiman, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar and, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ in default of payment of fine be was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Chanan Singh, filed an appeal against the judgment recording his conviction, which was dismissed by Shri Mewa Singh, Sessions Judge, Faridkot as per judgment dated 2.5. 1986.

The facts of the case, in brief are that on 22.8.1984 A.S.I. Ram Lubhaya along with other police officials wag present at busstand of village Aulakh were he received secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor in his residential house. After a ruqqa was sent to the police station for registration of a case the police party raided the house of the petitioner. He was found distilling illicit liquor by working a still. The still was cooled and dismantled and articles of still were taken into possession which included a drum containing 80 kilograms of Lahan used as a boiler. The articles of still were seized vide memo Ex. PB and subsequently the contents of boiler were got tested by Excise Inspector Gora Lal.

The contention of the petitioner in his statement, under Section 313. Cr.P.C. was that he was never found distilling illicit liquor and was falsely implicated in the case. He examined one Narinder Singh in his defence who deposed that one police official had visited the house of the petitioner but as the petitioner was away, he was asked to produce him in the police station on the next day. He produced the petitioner before the police and 56 days thereafter he learnt that the petitioner was involved in a case.

The case of. the prosecution rested on the testimony of Excise Inspector Gora Lal PW1, Head Constable Satish Chander PW2 and A.S.I. Ram Lubhaya PW3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that police party while present at a bus stop had received secret information about the distillation of illicit liquor by the petitioner and there was ample time and opportunity to join independent witnesses but none was associated. The testimony of police officials who were interested in the result of the case could not be considered as impartial or unbiased especially when the police party conducted it house raid on receipt of secret information against the petitioner. There was breach of mandatory provisions of Section 100 Cr. P C. and in these circumstances conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained. In support of his contention the learned counsel Shri G.S. Dhillon placed reliance on the case Rattan vs. The State of Punjab, 1984(1). Recent Criminal Reports 305 : 1984 (2) C.L.R. 538. In this case also the allegations against the petitioner were that he was found distilling illicit liquor by working a still in his house and the prosecution rested solely upon the evidence of official witnesses. It was observed :

"Admittedly no independent witness was joined from the locality. The plea taken by the police was that an attempt was made to join witnesses from the locality but none had come forward to join the party. This plea seems to be misconceived. Subsection (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon the police officer conducting the raid to associate at least two respectable persons from the locality and if the witnesses from the same locality are not available then he has to associate two respectable witnesses from the adjoining locality. But in the present case neither the respectable from the locality nor from the adjoining locality were associated in the raid."

It was further held :

"The provisions of subsection (4) of Section 100 of Criminal ProceduceCode are mandatory and the Legislature in enacting this provision intended to safeguard the liberty of the citizens. Otherwise the citizen would have been at the mercy of the arbitrariness of the police officials. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on the testimony of official witnesses."

In the instant case the secret information was, received at busstand where there were 4050 shops 23 persons were also present at the bus. stop but no effort was made to associate any one of them. Head Constable Satish Chander stated that Assistant SubInspector asked some person to join, but they refused He did not state that he was asked to bring respectables from the village but A.S.I. Ram Lubhaya contradicted him by stating that he had sent Head Constable Satish Chander to call the witnesses but none came with him. This contradiction in the statement of two police officials further rendered their testimony as doubtful and it appears that this version that they tried to associate some persons was an after though. In the case of Baaj Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1975 C.L. R. 123 it was held that testimony of official witnesses required corroboration from some independent source in order to sustain conviction of a person on a'' criminal charge and it was unsafe to sustain conviction simply on the statements of police and excise officials who were interested in the success of the raid. As in the present case the raid was conducted after receipt of secret information, there was noncompliance of the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. and conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained on the basis of statements of police officials and excise inspectors.

Consequently, I accept this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner.