Roshan Lal vs State of Panjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—Assistant SubInspector Sohan Singh Head Constable Ved Parkash, besides other police officials, had gone to village Begowal on 8.6.1982 from Police Station Bholath. At Begowal, Assistant SubInspector Sohan Singh received a secret information against the petitioner that he was distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still on the bank of rivulet of river Beas in the area of Mand Miani, Bhagurpurian.

On the basis of that secret information, Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh sent ruqa Exhibit PA to police station Bholath where first information report Exhibit PA/1 was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Bhagat Ram.

After sending ruqa, the police party raided the place mentioned by the informer. The petitioner was found distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still at the bank of the said rivulet. At the crucial time i.e. when the police party reached the spot, the petitioner was feeding fire in the hearth. He was apprehended. The working still was cooled down and dismantled. Drum Exhibit PI containing about 100 Kgs. of Lahan which was placed on the hearth which was being used as a boiler, Shakala Exhibit P2, Chapai Exhibit P3, Tube Exhibit P4 and other articles were taken into possession. 180, M/s. of illicit liquor was taken out of the contents of the receiver tin as sample and the remaining liquor was transferred into two bottles. All the articles were sealed and taken into possession. After completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the, petitioner was challaned under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The trial Court convicted him. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. A. S. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was a case of secret information and according to Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh (PW), the secret information was received at bus stand Begowal. Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh has further admitted that there were 15 to 20 shops at the bus stand and there is also a grain market and houses at some distance from the bus stand. Mr. Kalra points out that a large number of witnesses were available but no independent witness was joined by the investigating officer and non Joining of an independent witness casts a shadow on the prosecution case. His contention is that this case being dependent only on the testimony of official witnesses is not legally proved.

I have considered the arguments and find that there is some force in the same. The prosecution case rests entirely on the testimony of Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh, (PW 1) and Head Constable Ved Parkash (PW 2). Admittedly they had received a secret information at a place where large number of police men were available. There is no explanation why no independent witness was joined. There is no evidence that any effort was made to join any. In case of secret information, when independent witnesses are available, their nonjoining casts a doubt on the prosecution case, and the testimony of official witnesses may not be sufficient to maintain the conviction.

Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh (PW 1) admits that he had received the secret information at about 7 or 8.00 A.M. and they reached the place of recovery at 8.15 A.M. But according to ruqa Exhibit PA, it was sent at 9.00 A.M. It is further case of the prosecution that ruqa was sent by Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh before leaving for the spot. This contradiction in time is not explained. It appears that if the police party had reached the place of recovery at 8.15 A.M. and ruqa was sent at 9.00 A M. then it was obviously sent after the recovery and not prior to the going to the place of recovery as is mentioned in the ruqa. This abnormality in the prosecution evidence adds another disadvantage to the prosecution case

As no independent witness was joined although it was a case of secret information and he testimony of official witnesses is not very reliable, I do not think conviction of the petitioner can be maintained. In this view of the matter, I set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him by giving him benefit of doubt. As a result this revision petition is accepted.