Jang Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Jang Singh petitioner was charged under S.61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act for being in possession of a working still, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. He was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur by an elaborate and lucid Judgment upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

It is unnecessary to recount the facts. As is evident, the case against the petitioner rests on the testimony of Head Constable Mohinder Singh PW1, Surjit Singh, Excise Inspector, PW2 Sub Inspector Joginder Singh PW3 and Sub Inspector Balbir Singh PW4. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. Pathana Singh was however, examined in defence.

Mr. N.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, had been unable to make any serious dent in the prosecution case against the petitioner. The testimony of the aforesaid four official witnesses has been reappraised by me and it is wholly consistent and forthright. The acceptance of the same by both the courts below is consequently affirmed. The hackneyed argument that since all the four prosecution witnesses are officials their evidence should not be accepted, has also been raised. 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 of witnesses on mattes wholly collateral. The discrepancies pointed out are of untutored witnesses whose evidence was recorded after a lapse of about two years.

It was then contended that the seal with which the excisable material and the components of the working still were sealed had not been established to have been duty entrusted to someone else or that the same had remained with him throughout in order to avoid the possibility of any tampering. Reliance was placed on a decision in Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab (Cr. Revision No. 809/1976 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on May 10, 1979. The law as laid down in that Judgment no longer holds the field in view of a full Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 969/1979 (Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab) renderer don February 16,1982. It has been held therein 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 investigation to a third person forthwith. It has been further remarked that it necessarily follows there from that even where it had been so done, the nonproduction of such a witness cannot by itself effect the merits of the trial.

Finally Mr. Gill prays for the releases of the petitioner in terms of section 360 of the Code cannot be extended to cases of this kind. The petitioner was found working the still for commercial purposes. This offence has assumed a meaning proportion and requires curbing with a heavy hand. To release such offenders on their execution of bonds is to dilute the deterrent effect of the sentence provided in the Act. There is, however,marginal scope for reduction in the sentence, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place as far back as 1980and the petitioner is stated to be 30 years old. I, accordingly, reduce it to 1 1/2 years'' imprisonment. The sentence of fine with its default clause shall, however, remain.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition fails and is herein dismissed.