Jeet Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.11.1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who confirmed the judgment and order dated 14.5.1997 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozpur, who convicted the petitioner Jeet Singh under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for having been found in possession of a working still and its components.

The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.7.1993 HC Lekh Raj along with coofficials was going towards village Dhab Karyal, Mahalam, Dhani Prem Singh on his cycle. When the police party reached at bus stand to village Mahalam, HC Lekh Raj received a secret information that Jeet Singh alias Dholi was distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still towards western side of seepage drain near left side passage and if raid was conducted, large quantity of lahan and illicit liquor could be recovered. Ruqa Ex.PB was sent to Police Station, Jalalabad for the registration of the case and formal F.I.R. No. 190 dated 31.76.1993 was registered under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. Thereafter HC Lekh Raj raided the said place with the help of the remaining coofficials. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot while he was feeding fire in the health of the still. The working still was dismantled and was allowed to cool down. The components of the still were taken into possession. Liquor was also found coming in the pipe. The components of the still, liquor as well as Lahan were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. The Head Constable also prepared rough site plan Ex.PD of the place of recovery. On return to police station, case property was deposited with the MHC. The Lahan recovered from the spot was got tested from the Excise Inspector, who vide report Ex.PA declared the contents as lahan fit for further distillation. The sample of the liquor was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, who vide report Ex.PE declared the contents as illicit liquor. On completion of the investigation of the case, the petitioner was challaned under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who framed charge against the petitioner. It was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 Parkash Chand, Excise Inspector, PW2 Lekh Raj, HC and PW3 Santokh Singh, Head Constable. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the affidavits of the formal witnesses, besides the report of the Chemical Examiner and closed the case. On the closure of the prosecution case, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he was innocent. In defence he did not lead any evidence. The learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment dated 14.5.1997 convicted the petitioner under Section 61(i)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced in the manner as stated above.

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who also confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court. Hence the present revision which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri P.S. Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. With the assistance of these lawyers I have also been able to go through the record.

In the opinion of this Court, this revision should succeed on the short ground that there was a legal infirmity in the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that HC Lekh Raj received the secret information when he was at a public place. The police party was going on patrol. In these circumstances it was mandatory on the part of the Head Constable to associate the independent witness when he could associate it without any difficulty or inconvenience. There is no cogent evidence why the independent witness has not been associated. In these circumstance, to base the conviction of the petitioner sorely relying upon the statements of two police officials would be unfair. It is also not established on the record that at any point of time the investigation of the Head Constable was verified by a senior officer. There is no counterargument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.

Resultantly, I accept this revision, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and acquit the petitioner of the charge framed against him.

The case property stands confiscated to the State.

Fine, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be returned to him.

Revision allowed.