Jit Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The case of the prosecution is that on 24th July, 1982, Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, posted at Police Station Saddar Ferozepur, along with constable Harbans Singh had gone for a patrol and when the party passed through the village Wazidpur, Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.W.2, got secret information that Jit Singh accused was distilling illicit liquor by working a still in the drain passing through the area of that village. Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.W.2, reached the place and found that Jit Singh, accused, had dug a hearth in the ground in which he had lit fire. He had placed a drum on the hearth which contained lahan. He was distilling illicit liquor which was being received in the bottle. Jit Singh, accused, was apprehended. The fire in the heath was got extinguished and the working still was cooled, dismantled and its component parts were taken into possession. The illicit liquor was collected and a sample therefrom was separated. The sample was sealed and sent to the Chemical Examiner who found the same to be of illicit original. The contents in the drum contained 80 kgs. of Lahan which were tested by the Excise Inspector Tarlochan Singh, P.W.1. From the test, the Excise Inspector found the Lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor.

After investigation, the accused was prosecuted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur.

At the trial, Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, and Harbans Singh, Constable P.W.3, testified to the details of the occurrence and apprehension of the accused while committing the offence of illicit distillation. Tarlochan Singh, Excise Inspector P.W.1 proved his report.

When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the case against him and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of one Gurnam Singh with whom he had enmity. He also tendered a copy of the judgment, Exhibit D.1, in which Gurnam Singh had been convicted for a criminal offence.

The learned trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and sentenced Jit Singh to undergo 11/2 years'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ for offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. In default of payment of fine, Jit Singh was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Upholding the order of the conviction of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dismissed the appeal of Jit Singh but reduced the substantive term of imprisonment to one year R.I. and in defeat of payment of fine to two months'' R.I. This revision petition ha been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been pointed out that only police Officials, namely, Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector P.W.2 and Harbans Singh, Constable P.W.3 have been examined as witnesses. It is further urged that no man from the public was associated by Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector P.W.2, to witness the arrest of the petitioner and the recovery of the working still from his possession. It is admitted by Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.W.2, that he received secret information against the accused on a thoroughfare. He also admitted that people were passing on the road. Harbans Singh, Constable, P.W.3 admitted that they passed through the village Wazidpur when Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.W.2, had received secret information on a thoroughfare and people were passing from there. He was excepted to make efforts to associate anyone of the persons passing on the road to witness the apprehension of the petitioner and recovery of the working still. It appears that he did not make any effort in that direction. There is no record to show if he made any such effort. The statement of Harbans Singh, Constable, P.W.3 is very clear about the passing of the police party through village Wazidpur to reach the place of occurrence. Even at that time no effort was made to associate anybody from the village with the police party so that the act of the police officials could be witnessed by any, respectable from the village. It cannot be said that even during day time there was no person in the village. If any effort had been made some members of Panchayat, Lamardar or any other respectable from the village could be asked to join the police party. There was chance for the police party to procure the attendance of the members of the public to support the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of the working still from the petitioner. Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector deliberately avoided to join them. I am alive to the fact that the testimony of the police official is not to be brushed aside simply on account of their official status. At the same time in given circumstances of a case, as in this case, the court cannot overlook to eliminate the possibility of the presence of other evidence near the place of occurrence. In this case, Daljit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.W.2, deliberately avoided to make any such attempt. By this conduct he has made his act and motive suspicious. In the circumstances, I do not think it safe to rely on the testimony of the police officials alone when there were other discrepancies also in their evidence which has been overlooked by both the Subordinate Courts.

Far the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is accepted, order of conviction is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.