Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioner Pritam Singh was convicted under section (61)(I)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a. fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months was also awarded Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur. He did not find any merit in the same and dismissed the same.

The prosecution story as gathered from the evidence is that on 23rd May. 1982, a raiding party consisting of Police and Excise officials was organised for the purpose of excise raid in village Talwandi Dadian under the supervision of Sub Inspector Ajaib Singh, Incharge Excise Staff, Hoshiarpur. On reaching the village, the raiding party divided itself into smaller parties One such party was headed by PW2 Sucha Singh, Head Constable and it consisted of PW1 Satpal Singh. Excise Inspector. and some Constables. When this party went to raid the house of the petitioner and reached in front of it, it saw smoke emanating from the kitchen. The party reached the kitchen and saw the petitioner distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still He was arrested. Drum Ex. P1 was being used as a boiler. The Excise Inspector tested its contents and found the same to be lahan fit for distillation His report in this respect is Ex PA. One bottle was being used as a receiver in which distilled liquor measuring about 570 mis had been collected Sample was, separated from the contents of the receiver and both were separately sealed. The drum containing lahan was also sealed. The working still was allowed to cool and was then dismantled. The scaled parcels and the various components of the still. were taken into possession after preparing the usual memos. The sealed sample of liquor was sent to the Chemical Examiner who vide report Ex. PE opined the same to be illicit liquor. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was chargesheeted. The prosecution story given above has been fully supported by PW1 Satpal Singh, Excise Inspector and PW2 Sucha Singh, Head Constable.

At the close or the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under section 313, Code of. Criminal Procedure, about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution allegations and, pleaded false implication. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued. that the raiding party had gone to the village for conducting the excise raid but surprisingly enough no witness on the way or from the village was joined. According to him, only official. witnesses have supported the prosecution version and in the absence of nonofficial witness, the statements of both the official witnesses were doubtful. I need not discuss this argument in detail because this case is fully covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as State of Punjab v. Rain Parkash 1978 C.L.R. (Punjab & Haryana) 104. In that ease also, a raiding party was proceeding to conduct an excise raid in village. Kanganwal. When the party reached the canal bridge near the Kanganwal distributary, they noticed the accused (of that case) coming from the opposite side. On suspicion being raised, the accused was apprehended and on his search 80 gms. of opium, was recovered. In support of the prosecution story, only Excise Inspector and one Head Constable had appeared. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no independent witness having been joined in the raiding party, the, evidence of the official witnesses had to be viewed with suspicion. The State of Punjab came to this Court in appeal It was remarked :

"There being no provision of law requiring the attendance of any independent witness at the time of search of the person of a suspect, the recovery proceedings cannot, therefore, be held to be suspicious or unreliable simply because no independent witness was opted to joint the raiding party. At best, it would he a suspicious circumstance which would require the court to scrutinise the prosecution evidence with more caution and care but in no case by itself it can warrant the discredit of the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the considered view that Dalip Singh''s case (supra) was not correctly decided and the dictum laid down therein that the failure to join an independent witness on the part of the police official would attach a taint to his evidence, has to be disapproved."

The observations in Ram Parkash''s case (supra) clearly apply to the present case. As no independent witness was joined in the present case, the prosecution evidence had to be scrutinised carefully but it cannot be doubted merely on the ground that no nonofficial or independent witness was joined in the raid. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material discrepancy in the statements of PW1 Sat Pal Singh, Excise Inspector and PW2 Sucha Singh, Head Constable. There is no allegation to the effect that any of those witness or the local police was in any way inimical towards the petitioner. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that the accused would be falsely involved I do not find any ground to disbelieve the statements of the official witnesses examined in the present case.,

For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.