Jagir Singh vs State of Punjab

N.K. Agrawal, J.

Jagir Singh was tried by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, for the offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The prosecution case was that on April 13, 1984, Head Constable, Harbans Singh of Police Station Jalalabad, District Ferozepur along with other police men was on patrol duty. He, on receipt of a secret information, conducted a raid and found the accused Jagir Singh manufacturing illicit liquor in a `working still'' on the bank of a canal at village Kathgarh. Jagir Singh was arrested and parts and components of the working still were seized. `Lahan'' weighing 70 kgs. was found in a drum, which was being used as a boiler on a furnace. Samples of liquor were taken and kept in three bottles. All the articles were deposited at the Police Station. Lahan was found fit for distilling purposes by the Excise Inspector on testing.

During trial, three witnesses, namely, Head Constable Roor Singh, Head Constable Harbans Singh and Excise Inspector J.C. Sharia were examined by the prosecution. Report of the Chemical Examiner was tendered in evidence. The accused denied the allegations and examined Constable Dharam Singh in his defence. The prosecution witnesses, Head Constable Roor Singh and Head Constable Harbans Singh in their evidence gave the details about the raid at the working still. The learned Judicial Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that Jagir Singh was found running a distillery unit to manufacture illicit liquor. Jagir Singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/ under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, by order dated November 23, 1987.

Learned counsel for the accused, in the present revision petition, has argued that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution, though the raiding police party had sufficient time to secure the presence of such a witness from the village. There is nothing to show that the working still was detected all of a sudden without any prior information or that the police party had no time to look for a witness. The police party had proceeded to the spot after receiving an information and after sending `ruqa'' to the Police Station. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there were about 200 houses and a school in the village. There is also nothing in evidence to show that no one was ready and willing to come forward as a witness.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has, on the other hand, contended that raid was conducted by the police party on a secret information and it was for that reason that no one was taken as a witness. Any delay or leakage of information would have frustrated the entire exercise. Nothing is on the record to show that the evidence of the police men is motivated by enmity.

After perusisng the record and keeping in view the contentions of the two sides, it is found that the accused was caught operating a distillery. The police party had no time to secure a witness. In these circumstances, the plea, that in the absence of an independent witness the evidence of the police men should be discarded, has no merit. Nothing has been shown to indicate that the police men, appearing as witnesses, had any grudge against the accused. The Appellate Court examined the evidence on record and found no merit in the plea of the accused. No illegality or material irregularity in arriving at the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence, has been shown.

The seizure took place in the year 1984 and, in that context, the learned counsel for the accused has prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter as a period of 15 days has elapsed. He has submitted that Jagir Singh has already undergone sentence for more than two months after the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on November 23, 1987. This Court suspended the sentence on February 1, 1988.

On a consideration of the matter, it appears appropriate that the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused as it would meet the ends of justice inasmuch as a period of 15 years has elapsed. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained.

The revision petition stands disposed of in these terms.