Saheg Singh vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Sabeg Singh, petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated July 8, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, has preferred this Criminal Revision as he was held guilty by the trial Court under Section 61.1(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for the possession of a drum containing 100 kgs. of lahan.

On the basis of a secret information received against the petitioner, Raghbir Singh, Head Constable, in the company of other police officials raided the room (kotha) at the tubewell of the petitioner in the area of village Behlolpur. The petitioner at that time was found stirring the contents of the drum, which was found to contain 100 kgs. of lahan. It was duly sealed with the seal mark `RS'' and taken into possession vide seizurememo. Exhibit PA, duty attested by the witnesses. On the basis of ruqa, Exhibit PB, a formal F.I.R. Exhibit PB/1 was recorded. The Excise Inspector Raj Singh, P.W.1, tested the contents of lahan contained in the said drum and he gave his report.

As a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, therefore, he was charged under section 61.1(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the close of the trial and after assessing the prosecution evidence and the defence putforth by the petitioner, the trial Court had convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/; in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The appellate Court in appeal, however, reduced the sentence from one year to six months'' rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Hence, the present Criminal Revision.

I have perused the records of the case with the help of Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate representing the State of Haryana.

I have also gone through the grounds of revision and the main challenge in this revision petition is that no independent witness has been joined by the Investigating Officer. It was imperative upon him to have joined an independent witness, particularly when secret information was received. Secondly, the link evidence is missing as the affidavit of Moharrir Head Constable is not properly verified, as required under the provisions of Section 297, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with the High Court Rules and JUDGMENTs, Volume IV, Chapter 12B.

Having considered the evidence brought on the record and the documents on the basis of which the conviction and sentence has been challenged as above, I am of the view that the same are without any basis. It is wellsettled that the testimony of the official witnesses is not to be discarded simply because they are official witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution evidence is not to be disbelieved on the ground that there is no independent corroboration. Further, in case the Investigating Officer had taken steps to join independent witnesses from the village, the very purpose of secret information would have been defeated as there was specific information that the petitioner was indulging in the distillation of illicit liquor and in case of raid he could be apprehended. The information proved to be true as at the time of raid, the petitioner was found shaking his hand in the drum containing 100 kgs. of lahan. The said drum was not lying at a deserted place or in the field. In fact, it was lying in the kotha of his tubewell, which was certainly in his conscious possession. Similarly, it is not a case where the link evidence is missing. The Moharrir Head Constable had duly sworn an affidavit and the same has been properly verified and attested by the Investigating Officer. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has rightly been convicted and the same requires to be maintained.

In the result, there is no merit in this Criminal Revision and the same is dismissed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, i.e. the Appellate Court had already granted concession by reducing the same from one year to six months'' rigorous imprisonment, which is minimum therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby maintained.

Revision dismissed.