Gajjan Singh and anr. vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Gajjan Singh and his wife Bhagvan Kaur petitioners were charged under S. 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, for being in possession of a working still, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. They were found guilty of the offence and convicted accordingly. Bhagvan Kaur was released on probation while Gajjan Singh was sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by an elaborate and lucid judgment upheld their conviction and sentence. They have now come up in revision.

On 8th February, 1979, the Assistant SubInspector Malkiat Singh along with Constable Jaspal Singh and others was going in the area of village Majara Kalan along with the bandh of Sutlej river, when he saw some smoke coming out of the sarkandas. The police party raided that place and found that the petitioners were distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still. Bhagwan Kaur was feeding the fire, while Gajjan Singh was handling the receiver tin. On seeing the police party, Gajjan Singh ran away and jumped into the river and crossed it although he was unsuccessfully chased by the policy party. Bhagwan Kaur was apprehended. The working still was cooled, dismantled and thereafter its component parts were taken into possession.

As is evident, the case against the petitioners rests on the evidence of Jaspal SIngh, P.W. 1 and Malkiat Singh, Assistant SubInspector, P.W. 2 and Gurbans Singh, Excise Inspector, P.W. 3. The petitioner pleaded false complicity in the case. It was, however, pleaded by Bhagwan Kaur that her father Hukam Singh and brother Puran Singh had filed complaints against some officials of the Police Station Saddar, Ludhiana and on that account she and her husband had been falsely implicated in the case. Sketchy evidence in the shape of oral testimony of Hukam Singh, (D.W.) has been adduced on this point. The trial court unhesitatingly found that this plea of the petitioners was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand. The Appellate Court has affirmed the said finding.

Mr. P.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to make any serious dent in the prosecution case against the petitioners. The testimony of Assistant SubInspector Malkiat Singh and Head Constable Jaspal Singh has been reappraised by me and it is wholly consistent and forthright. The acceptance of the same by both the Courts below is consequently affirmed. The hackneyed argument that since both the prosecution witnesses are officials, their evidence should not be accepted, has also been raised. This has obviously to be repelled in view of the string of authorities that the official testimony is not on a disadvantage and has to be appraised without bias. The learned counsel had to fall back on the rather infinitesimal discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses on matters wholly collateral. The discrepancies pointed out are of the untutored witnesses, whose evidence was recorded after a lapse of about 1/14 years.

It was then contended that the seal with which the excisable material and the components of the working still were sealed, had not been established to have been duly entrusted to someone else or that the same had remained with him throughout in order to avoid the possibility of any tampering. Reliance was placed on a decision in Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No. 809 of 1976, decided by Division Bench of this Court on May 10, 1979. The law as laid down in that judgment no longer holds the field in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Crl Revision No. 969 of 1979 Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab, rendered on February 16, 1982. It has been held therein that there is neither a statutory requirement nor a precedential mandate for handing over the seal used by a police officer in the course of an investigation to a third person forthwith. It has been further remarked that it necessarily follows therefrom that even where it had been so done, the nonproduction of such a witness cannot by itself effect the merits of trial.

It was sought to be contended that the identity of Gajjan Singh was not established beyond doubt from the evidence on record. This contention as already noticed by both the Courts below, is hardly tenable.

In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners have to be sustained and this revision petition stand dismissed.

Revision dismissed.