Mukhtiar Singh vs The State of Punjab

D.S. Tewatia, J.—The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment thereof, to further rigorous imprisonment for nine months u/s 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The petitioner has challenged the order of the lower appellate Court, which had dismissed his appeal and had sustained the conviction and sentence, on the ground that, despite the fact it was mentioned in the grounds of anneal that part of the case property, i.e. the lahan was not produced in Court and that the tin which contained it and which was sealed was produced in an empty state, and without seal and without bearing any chit, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, did not deal with the point in his judgment.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred me to Fauja Singh v. The State of Punjab 1977 Ch. L.R. 42, wherein it was held that where lahan was not produced, the accused deserves to be acquitted of the charge u/s 61(i)(c) of the Act.

It is true that the learned Sessions Judge did not specifically mention the contention of the appellant in his judgment but paragraph 8 thereof, which is in the following terms, appears to deal with the case in its proper prespective :--

The apparatus of the working still, as it was fitted, has been completely proved on the record and so has been done in the case of its working It has come in the evidence that pieces of wood were burning in the hearth, the contents of the tin Exhibit P-1 were boiling and the liquor was passing on to the Receiver bottle. It has also come in the evidence that the Balta Exhibit P-6 was being used as a cooler i.e. condensing chamber. Resides that, the lahan was tested by E.I. Sham Singh (PW 2), a distillary trained expert. Then the contents of the receiver bottle Exhibit P-5 were got chemically tested from the Chemical Examiner, who, vide his report Exhibit PE, found the same to be illicit liquor. This clearly corroborates with the ocular account of the version and confirms the process of the distillation.

The accused was surprised by the raiding party which, inter alia comprised of Excise Inspector Sham Singh (PW 2) and Head Constable Karam Singh (PW 1). The working still was dismantled. Various component parts were taken into possession besides the products i.e. the distilled liquor and certain quantity of lahan from which it was being distilled when the apparatus etc. of the working still was produced in Court the tin which initially had contained lahan was with out it. That means that a part of the vase property i.e. lahan was not produced in Court. Merely for the reason that lahan was not produced in Court, the prosecution case cannot fail when the apparatus of the working still and other implements were produced in Court. At times, a lahan can be in such a bulcky condition that it would be well nigh impossible to keep it for long. In the present case, we have the testimony of the Excise Inspector to the effect that he had tasted the contents and that it was lahan. In Fauja Singh''s case (supra), it was not forth coming in the evidence of the Excise Inspector that he had tasted the contents and that it was lahan. In that case, the evidence of the witnesses was also found to be inconsistent. It was when the lahan was not produced in Court, the evidence of the witnesses was inconsistent and the Excise Inspector had not stated in his evidence that he had tasted the contents and it was lahan, that the Court held that the offence was not proved and acquitted the accused in that case. Such is not the position in the present case.

For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.