High Courts

Gurmukh Singh vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 March 1985 · Citation: (1985) 03 P&H CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.P.S.Sandhu, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 806 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 363 words

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months, under section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act by the trial Magistrate. An appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions where it failed substantially inasmuch as the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from six months to three months. The petitioner has come up in revision. The same was admitted by B.S. Yadav, J., vide his order dated 28th May, 1984.

2.

On 14th May, 1982, the petitioner was secured by Assistant SubInspector Hawa Singh while he was present in his field. He got recovered five drums of lahan in consequence of a disclosure statement. The lahan was tested by PW1 Om Parkash Excise, Inspector. The same was found to be lahan fit for distillation. The witnesses of recovery are Assistant SubInspector Hawa Singh and Dharam Chand Constable. Although the raid party went from the Police Station, Kalayat, for an excise raid but they did not care to join anybody from the public Assistant SubInspector Hawa Singh stated that he sent Dharam Chand Constable to bring respectables from the village but the recovery was effected before their arrival and that a few persons did reach the spot after the recovery. On the other hand, Dharam Chand Constable has stated in no uncertain terms that he did not go to call anybody from the village nor did they join anybody from the public. In view of this statement of Dharam Chand Constable the finding of the learned lower appellate Court that the police party did make an effort to join witnesses from the public, but the recovery was effected before they could reach the spot was factually wrong. The police party could have easily called some persons from the public and waited for their arrival after securing the petitioner. In this situation, I feel that the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, I set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to him. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.