Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

Gurcharan Singh son of Pala Singh, aged 27 years and Bhajan Singh son of Amar Singh, 23 years, have filed this Revision petition against the concurrent decision of two Courts below, as per which they have been convicted under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, for which offence each one of them was sentenced to one year''s Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each.

On December 9, 1981, a Police Party headed by Head Constable Satnam Singh (PW 3) and other Constables including Gurdit Singh (PW2) were present near the Railway crossing within the Revenue Estate of Khanpur, when a secret information was received that the petitioners were distilling illicit liquor by working a still at the tubewell of Amar Singh. The Police Perth raided the said place and apprehended both the petitioners who were engaged in the process of illicit distillation. Gurcharan Singh was feeding the fire while Bhajan Singh was changing the water. The components of the working still were dismantled and taken into possession along with a small quantity of distilled liquor. About 20 Kgs. of lahan which was lying in drum, was also recovered. On subsequent test, this lahan was found fit for distillation of illicit liquor, as per testimony of Mehar Chand, Exise Inspector (PW1). The petitioners were prosecuted, with the result already noticed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence of the witnessess and has tried to impugn the conviction of the petitioner on certain grounds, which may be noticed. It is contended in the first instance that the prosecution did not produce any independent witness in this case and that both the witnesses produced by it are official witnesses. This cannot, however, be ground to discard the testimony of the witnesses and the law on the point is quite well settled. Both the witnesses were cross examined on all the aspects of the case and they stood well this test. As observed by both the Courts below, some minor discrepancies did creep in their evidence, but much significance could not be attached to these discrepancies. This conclusion is quite justifiable. The result is that the conviction of the petitioners under section 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act, is maintained.

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that both the petitioners are youthful first offenders and considering the fact that the occurrence took place as far back as December 9, 1981, it would not be conductive to the moral health of the petitioner if they are sent back to jail. I am inclined to a agree with the learned counsel on this point. Accordingly, in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment and fine upon the petitioner, they are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct subject to their furnishing the necessary bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ each to the satisfaction of trial Court, undertaking to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year and also to receive sentence if called upon to do so. The bonds shall be furnished by the petitioners within one month from today, failing which the sentence imposed upon them by the Courts below shall take effect.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.