Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is criminal revision against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 11.9.87 whereby he maintained the order dated 7.5.87 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar convicting and sentencing Darshan Singhpetitioner to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ or in default to under go further RI for 3 months.

The facts of the case are as follows :

Police party headed by ASI Harbans Singh, consisting of Constables Gurdial Singh, Harjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh was present at byepass on G.T. Road, Jandiala Amritsar in connection with checking of terrorists. ASI Harbans Singh received secret information that Darshan Singh was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor and selling it and if a timely raid was conducted, illicit liquor could be recovered from his possession. ASI Harbans Singh thought information to be reliable. He accordingly drafted ruqa Ex.PC. He sent ruqa Ex.PC through Constable Kuldeep Singh to PS Jandiala on the basis of which case FIR No. 403 was registered on 7.10.84 against the accused. ASI Harbans Singh accompanied by Constables Gurdial Singh and Harjit Singh raided the house of the accused and found him distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. He was apprehended while feeding fire in the hearth of the working still. Working still was dismantled and cooled down. Its component parts were taken into possession. A sample was taken out of the liquor lying at the spot. Sample was sealed. Receiving bottle was sealed. Drun containing `lahan'' was also sealed. Visual site plan Ex.PD was prepared at the spot with correct marginal notes. After investigation, accused was challaned.

Accused was tried under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act 1914. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide order dated 7.5.87. His appeal to the Court of Session failed. He is now before this court through this Criminal revision.

In this case, conviction is resting on the testimony of ASI Harbans Singh and that of Constable Gurdial Singh. There is no corroboration to their testimony by independent evidence. No independent witness was joined in the raid by ASI Harbans Singh though ASI Harbans Singh was proceeding on receipt of secret information which he thought to be reliable. ASI Harbans Singh ought to have joined some independent witness when he was going to raid the house of the accused. Apprehension of Darshan Singh petitioner was not sudden. His apprehension was in pursuance of receipt of some secret information, which was that he was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor and if a timely raid was conducted at his house, illicit liquor could be recovered from his house. Further PWs are discrepant with each other. One PW has stated that the informer accompanied them upto the house of the accused and he pointed out to them the house of the accused while other PW has stated that informer parted them on the way. In my opinion, it would not be safe to convict the accused on the sole testimony of police officials who have not been corroborated by any independent evidence. Police officials as we know, are interested in the success of the case detected by them and to achieve success in the case detected by them, they show sometimes vehemence also.

For the reasons given above, this criminal revision succeeds and is accepted and the conviction and sentence recorded by two courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge on which he was tried. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.