Ranjodh Singh vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.—On 3-10-1983 Sub-Inspector Harish Kumar, Station House Officer of Police Station, Mukerian, in the company of Inderjit Singh and other Police Officials, was present at T Point, Nushehra Pattan Mukerian on Pathnkot-Jalandhar Road At about 7 p.m., car with registration No. DHX 8977 was seen coming from the side of Pathankot. A signal by torch-light was given and the petitioner was found driving the car which was stopped by him. The petitioner was apprehended and on search of the car a, gunny bag was found lying near the seat adjacent to the driver''s seat. The bag contained 3 bladders of illicit liquor. From the back seat, 2 gunny bags were recovered 4 bladders of illicit liquor were recovered from one bag and 3 from the other bag. The same were taken into possession and out of each bladder, a sample was taken out and ultimately, these samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner. The remaining liquor in the bladders was transferred to ten plastic containers which were sealed On receipt of report Ex. PE from the Assistant Chemical Examiner, the contents of the pints were opined to be illicit liquor with the data Ex. PE/1. After submission of the report u/s 173 of the Criminal P.C., the prosecution got a charge framed in respect of the offence u/s 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act against the revision-petitioner for keeping in his possession 1,27,500 ml. of illicit liquor on 3-10-1983. This quantity of illicit liquor measures 170 bottles of 750 ml. each.

The prosecution examined Excise Inspector Sher Singh (PW 1) who was also with the police party and Sub-Inspector Harish Kumar (PW 2). The prosecution gave up HC Atma Singh as unnecessary and tendered Ex. PE the report of the Chemical Examiner and Ex. PE/1 the data given by him affidavits Exs. PF, PG and PH of Constable Joga Singh, MHC Sansar Chand and Constable Sahtokh Singh respectively. With this the prosecution evidence was closed. The petitioner was examined u/s 313 of the Criminal P. C wherein he simply denied the prosecution allegations. No evidence was produced in defence. After examining the facts of the case, as proved during trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate u/s 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default thereof, to suffer RI for a further period of 6 months. The car in which this illicit liquor was carried was also directed to be confiscated to the State. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions, but failed to get any relief.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has'' challenged the prosecution version on the ground that no independent witnesses were joined by the police party, although the same were available. The next argument of the learned Counsel is that the case property was not produced before the trial Court. The learned State counsel urges that non-joining the private persons during checking is not fatal and at the most, the statements given by the prosecution witnesses have to be closely scrutinised

I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel and have perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

The police officials belong to Police Station Mukerian which is on the Pathankot-Jalandhar Road, whereas the revision-petitioner belongs to village Ishar Bucha, district Kapurthala which falls in the area of Police Station Bhulath. This village is at a far off distance from the place of recovery. In this situation, there could possibly be no enmity or any other motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Nothing has been stated by the petitioner in his statement except that he denied the prosecution version. He claimed to be the owner of the car. On 29-8-1985, according to his statement recorded on that day, he wanted to lead evidence but on 6-9-1985 he stated that he did not want to produce any defence evidence and therefore, closed his defence. Excise Inspector Sher Singh (PW 1) in his cross-examination stated that Ruqqa was sent at about 9.15 p.m. A reference to the Ruqqa Ex. PC makes it clear that this was sent after completion of the proceedings for search and taking possession of the liquor, as well as the sample therefrom, preparing the recovery memos etc, and the time 9.15 p.m., as mentioned therein. The petitioner was given a signal at about 7 p.m. The whole process must have taken about 2 hours. Ex. PC is incorporated in the First Information Report Ex..PC/1. Objection about time of recovery stated in the judgments as 9.15 p.m., is ,with regard to the time the Ruqqa was sent and there is no infirmity. This criminal revision was admitted vide order dated 31-1-1986, only on the ground that the recovery was effected at about 7/7.15 p.m. and the Courts below have wrongly observed that it was effected at 9.15 p.m.

The further argument was that the observation that the shops in the vicinity had been closed by that time, was mistaken. It was the month of October and even at 7/7.15 p. m., all the shops cannot be expected to remain open especially, in view of the disturbed conditions in this part of the country at the time of recovery. The explanation that no public person was available for being associated at that point of time cannot be said to be unreasonable. SI Harish Kumar (PW 2) specifically stated in cross-examination that at the place of recovery and during the days of recovery, shops used to be closed at 7 p.m. and hardly a tea-stall and some other shops were open. He further stated that he tried to join some public witnesses, but he could not find some respectables. The tea-stall holder and a tonga man did not come. There is hardly any discrepancy in the statements of the Excise Inspector and the Sub-Inspector (PW 1) and (PW2) respectively. The recovery of 170 bottles of illicit liquor from a car coming from the side of Pathankot cannot be doubted, in view of the circumstances of the case, especially when the village of the petitioner does not fall within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukerian where SI Harish Kumar (PW 2) was posted. I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Courts below in coming to the conclusion. The revision-petitioner has not given any plausible explanation whatsoever, as to in what situation he happened to be driving the said car in which 10 bladders containing illicit liquor were found in 3 separate gunny bags, i. e. 2 gunny bags on the back seat and one gunny bag near the front seat just on the left hand side of the petitioner. There could be no other conclusion except that the petitioner was carrying the said quantity of illicit liquor in his own car. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has hot been able to point out any improbability in the prosecution version.

The non-production of case property during trial, in the circumstances of the case, could not be fatal. On 29-8-1985, the learned State counsel filed an application claiming a short adjournment for the said purpose, but the Court, in the presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, declined the request on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this Court laying down that non-production was not fatal. Reference may be made to case Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, . The matter was not pursued further by the defence during trial and it is not shown as to how the petitioner was prejudiced.

In view of the observation made above, this criminal revision is dismissed. The conviction of the petitioner by the Courts below is upheld. Minimum sentence for transporting or keeping in possession more than 10 bottles of illicit liquor is six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of not less than Rs. 1,000/-. The car of the petitioner has been directed to be confiscated and this is also an additional punishment. In view of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to RI for one year. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, it is sustained, along with sentence in default of payment of fine.