Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated March 13, 1987, passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated October 21, 1986, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby he was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on September 16, 1982, a police party headed by HC Baldev Singh was present in the area of village Burj in connection with investigation of a case under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act against Kartar Singh, petitioner. During investigation of the case, the petitioner made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed five drums of lahan in the land by the side of the drain, about which he had the exclusive knowledge and he alone could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement, Ex. PA, was reduced into writing by HC Baldev Singh and thereafter the accused led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered five drums each containing 150 Kgs. of Lahan. The drums of Lahan were sealed by HC Baldev Singh with his seal bearing letters ''BS'' and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PB. Ruqa, Ex. PC was sent by the Head Constable to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PC/1, was recorded. He also prepared rough site plan, Ex. PD, of the place of recovery, recorded statements of the witnesses and thereafter on return to the Police Station, deposited the case property with the Moharrir Head Constables on the same day with seals intact. The lahan was got tested from Harjit Singh, Excise Inspector, who vide his report, Ex. PE, declared the content of the drums as fully fermented lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined HC Bhajan Singh (PW 1), HC Baldev Singh (PW 2), Harjit Singh, Excise Inspector (PW 3) and tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex. PF, of MHC Pritam Singh.

The plea of the petitioner, when examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, is of denial simpliciter and his false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.

Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the case against the petitioner had been registered on the basis of a secret information but the prosecution did not join any independent witness despite the fact that the police party had ample time to do so. He further contended that there was even no evidence on the record to show that the police party had tried to associate any independent witness. The contentions of the learned counsel have no force. It is well settled that the statements of the official witnesses have to be considered like the statements of other witnesses but where the case is based on the testimony of the official witnesses, it puts the court on its own guard to scrutinise their evidence with care and caution. The testimony of the official witnesses cannot be discarded only on the sole ground of their status. The instant case is based on the testimony of PW 1 HC Bhajan Singh, PW 2 HC Baldev Singh and PW 3 E. I. Harjit Singh. It has been cogently and convincingly proved that the police party, on receipt of secret information against the petitioner at village Gehri, had conducted a raid near the minor canal bridge in the area of village Burj and found him distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. On further interrogation, the petitioner made a disclosure statement, Ex. PA, and pursuant thereto got recovered five drums, each containing 150 Kgs. of lahan, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PB. PW 3 E.I. Harjit Singh tested the lahan vide his report, Ex. PE. No contradiction is found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on the basis of which the case of the prosecution can be discarded. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record to show that the PWs had some animus to falsely implicate the petitioner.

The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the place of recovery is accessible to the public and is not in exclusive possession of the petitioner. He further contended that the Investigating Officer of the case had misused the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the petitioner was not in custody when his disclosure statement, Ex. PA, was recorded. This contention is also devoid of any force. HC Bhajan Singh (PW 1) and HC Baldev Singh (PW 2) have deposed in their statements that the petitioner had made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed five drums of lahan near the canal minor bridge underneath the earth about which he had exclusive knowledge and he alone could get the same recovered after pointing the place of concealment. It has also come in their statements that thereafter the petitioner got recovered the said drums of lahan from the place of concealment. The place of concealment is near the minor canal bridge in the area of village Burj and the drums of lahan were found underneath the earth. Therefore, it cannot be said that the drums of lahan were accessible to the public. The possession of those drums of lahan by the petitioner stands proved as had exclusive knowledge about them. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was taken into custody after the recovery of lahan. The petitioner was already in police custody in a case under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, which fact is proved on record by the testimony of HC Baldev Singh (PW 2), who deposed that the accused was taken into custody after the recovery in the earlier case. Thus, it cannot be said that the mandatory provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act have not been complied with.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a young man and not a previous convict, be released on probation. I do not find any force in this contention also. The recovery effected from the petitioner is so heavy that it shows that he was running a mini distillery for earning easy money. The petitioner was apprehended when he was found distilling illicit liquor in the connected case. His act of distilling illicit liquor on such a large scale not only affects the exchequer of the State but the consumption of the illicit liquor also affects the health of the society. Such boot leggers are to be dealt with deterrent punishment. In Criminal Revision No. 321 of 1987 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the petitioner had been held guilty under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, for which the maximum punishment is three years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/. Therefore, no case is made out for releasing the petitioner no probation.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.