Piara Singh vs The State

Bedi, J.—Piara Singh aged about 40 years was sent up 1or trial u/s 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act of 1914, for being in possession of 26 bottles of illicit liquor on the 23rd March, l964. The trial Court found the charge proved against him, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to nine months'' rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of two hundred rupees. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Piara Singh did not feel satisfied and went up in appeal against the order of the Magistrate dated the 20th March, 1966, which came up before Shri Sewa Singh, Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who dismissed the same vide his order dated the 23rd May, 1966. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

The story for the prosecution briefly runs as under. On the 23rd March, 1964, Assistant Sub Inspector Narinder Pal Singh P.W. 4 along with some Police Constables was going on Dasuya Miani Road and in the Grain Market at Dasuya Assistant Sub Inspector Bawa Singh, Gurdial Singh, Harbans Singh and Charan Singh joind the party. When they reached the Dasuya Bridge they saw the petitioner coming from the side of Miani on a horse. On seeing them, the petitioner felt some what perturbed and was, therefore, stopped. The search of his khurji exhibit P. 29 revealed two bladders exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 containing illicit liquor. Samples out of the two bladders were taken out and the rest of the liquor was transferred into twenty-six bottles. All the incriminating articles were taken into possession and the case against the petitioner was registered which ended in the above mentioned result.

When examined u/s 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner denied the allegations against him and stated that he had been involved in this case on account of his enmity with Narinder Pal Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him, his relations with Narinder Pal Singh were strained as the petitioner had got a case compromised against his relations Joga and Bua Ditta u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the wishes of the Assistant Sub-Inspector who had investigated this case. He produced four witnesses in support of his plea including Dr. Bhagwan Singh D.W. 3.

The prosecution examined a number of witnesses to prove their case, but the material witnesses out of them were Narinder Pal Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector, Harbans Singh P.W. 2 (a non-official witness), Gurdial Singh P.W. 1 and Charan Singh P.W. 3. They were the eyewitnesses of this recovery Gurdial Singh and Charan Singh were examined by the prosecution but they did not support the prosecution case and are alleged to have resiled. Harbans Singh P.W. 2 did support the prosecution case but his evidence does not inspire confidence. He seems to be under the influence of the police and readily available whenever his services are required by it. In Toss-examination he admitted that he might have appeared in five or seven cases of Police raids. He went on to say that he joined Bawa Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector in another laid. He appeared as a prosecution witness against Amar Singh in a cape for possession of land. Similarly, he appeared as a prosecution witness in a case against Narinder Singh of Manga. He also admitted to have appeared against Dewan Adharmi of his own village in a case of working still. He also admitted to have appeared in yet another case against one Faquir of his village. He could not even say whether the accused in all or any of there cases were convicted or acquitted. It is just a coincidence that he is alleged to have come across Assistant Sub-Inspector Narinder Pal Singh in Dasuya Gram Market. this Court has often observed that the investigating officers should join in such raiding parties independent persons from the neighbourhood and not stooges who are always at them beck and call and are too willing to state anything as they are desired to by the prosecution. It appears that no effort is made to apprise the investigating officers of these observations of this Court. It is true that simply because a person belongs to the Police Department his statement should not be ignored but rather should be treated in the same manner as that of any other witness, but where a number of independent witnesses are produced and they do not support the prosecution, it will not be safe to rely on the evidence of the investigating officer alone and convict an offender especially when some allegations of partiality and interestedness are made against such officer. In the present case Narinder Pal Singh Assistant Sub Inspector himself admitted that there was some such case in which Joga and Bua Djta were involved u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code though he could not say that they were related to the petitioner or the petitioner had any hand in the compromise.

Be that as it may, I, for the reasons already given, feel that it will not be quite safe to uphold the conviction of the petitioner in this case. He is, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.