Ishar Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Ishar Singh petitioner was charged under S. 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for having been found in possession of 2 cans containing illicit liquor before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda and having been found guilty thereunder, he was sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, maintained his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

On 30th November, 1980, on receipt of secret information, the Assistant SubInspector Joginder Kumar along with Excise Inspector Rattan Chand Gupta and some other police officials raided the house of the accusedpetitioner who was then apprehended. On interrogation by the Investigating Officer, the accused suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 2 cans containing illicit liquor from the specified place of concealment. After completing the formalities, the samples taken out of those two cans were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide his report, Exhibit P.F. found them to be of illicit origin.

The prosecution case primarily rested on the testimony of the Assistant SubInspector Joginder Kumar and Excise Inspector Rattan Chand Gupta. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

There is no doubt that the Assistant SubInspector and the Excise Inspector in their statements have fully supported the prosecution story which has been narrated above but the question is as to how far reliance can be placed on the testimony of these two officials witnesses. These witnesses have admitted in their statements that neither at the busstand nor in the village any attempt was made by them to join some independent witnesses from the public. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in not joining with him independent witnesses although available in the locality renders the prosecution story highlydoubtful against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it would not be safe to base the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the testimony of the Excise Inspector and the Investigating Officer as the same loses its evidentiary value on account of the fact that although the independent witnesses were available in the village of the petitioner, yet their services were not availed of by the Investigating Officer of witness the recovery.

For the reasons given above I accept this revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.