Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Gurcharan Singh petitioner was fond in possession of a working still in his house for the distillation of illicit liquor and brought to trial under S 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. He was held guilty thereunder and sent to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in a considered judgment upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

It is unnecessary to recount the facts. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Excise Inspector Subhash Chander, Head Constable Harbhajan Singh and Constable Sukhram Singh. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. Constable Piara Lal was examined in defence. Both the Courts below, however, rejected the plea of the petitioner.

The testimony of the aforesaid three official witnesses has not been reappraised by me and it is wholly consistent and forthnight. The acceptance of the same by both the Courts below is consequently affirmed. The hackneyed argument that since the prosecution witnesses are officials, their evidence should not be accepted has been raised by the learned defence counsel. 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 untutored witnesses whose evidence was recorded after a lapse of time. It was then contended that the seal with which the excisable material and the components of the working still where sealed, had not been established to have been duly entrusted to someone else to avoid the possibility of any tampering. In the full Bench decision of this Court in Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Revision No. 969 of 1979, decided on February 10, 1982, it has been held 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 as done, the nonproduction of such a witness cannot by itself effect the merits of the trial.

In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner have to be sustained and this petition stands dismissed.