Puran Singh vs State of Haryana

A. S. Nehra, J.

Puran Singh was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 12.8.1986. Hence this revision petition.

The prosecution version in nutshell is as under :

On 14.8.1992 A.S.I. Dalip Singh along with Sudhir Kumar, Excise Inspector and three Constables was investigating another case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act against Puran Singh petitioner. On interrogation, Puran Singh made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a drum containing 180 Kgs. of lahan under the earth in front of his tubewell and he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Puran Singh got recovered that drum containing 180 Kg. of lahan. Sudhir Kumar, Excise Inspector tested the said lahan at the spot and found the same to be fit for illicit distillation. After cost, the drum was sealed with seal bearing inscription ''SK'' and the seal remained with Sudhir Kumar, Excise Inspector. The drum was taken into possession by the Police. Ruqa Exhibit PD was sent to the police station for registration of the case.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined Dalip Singh, A.S.I. as P.W.1 and Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Excise Inspector as P.W.2. Both of them have fully supported the prosecution case and deposed that the accused after making disclosure statement had got recovered a drum containing about 180 Kgs. of lahan. Sudhir Kumar also stated that he tested the said lahan at the spot and found the same to be fit for illicit distillation.

The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence although in the first instance he had expressed his desire to lead defence evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since no independent witness was joined in the investigation, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be upheld on the testimony of two official witnesses. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the argument of learned counsel but I am not impressed with this argument. The conviction of the petitioner can be recorded on the testimony of the official witnesses. The peculiar circumstances of this case are that the police was investigating another case against the accused who was already in their custody. It was in the course of said investigations that the accused had made a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof he got the recovery of contraband property effected. There is nothing against the two official witnesses, one of them is not even a police officer but he is rather an Excise Inspector. Both the witnesses are not inimical towards the petitioner. There is no material on the record to show that either of them was in any way interested to falsely implicate the petitioner. Even no suggestion was put to these official witnesses that they had any bias against the petitioner.

The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disclosure statement Exhibit PA has not been proved in as much as A.S.I. Dalip Singh, P.W.1 has deposed that the accused had disclosed that he had kept concealed a drum of lahan under the earth near his house, whereas in the disclosure statement Exhibit PA the place of concealment is given to be in front of tubewell of the accused. There is no force in this argument also. P.W.1 Dalip Singh has stated in his examinationinChief that the accused had disclosed that he had kept concealed a drum of lahan near his tubewell. Similarly, P.W.2 has stated that the accused had disclosed he has kept buried under the earth a drum of lahan near his tubewell. Thus, there being no contradiction in the statements of these two witnesses and that of disclosure statement Exhibit PA, the above argument pales into insignificance and the same is rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is not a previous convict and his conviction in the other case has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 12.8.1986 in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1985 and a copy of the judgment has been filed with the revision petition as Annexure P1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the conviction of the petitioner in the other case has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, the petitioner may be released on probation in this case.

The petitioner is a first offender. There is nothing against his character and antecedents on the record and he is on bail since August 28, 1986. The offence was committed on 14.8.1982. The trial court did not give the petitioner the benefit of probation because the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court in the other case.

Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given one chance to reform himself. Accordingly, his conviction is maintained and the sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside and it is directed that he be released on entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He is further directed to deposit Rs. 3,000/ as costs of the proceedings. This revision petition is thus partly allowed as indicated above.