Sham Kaur vs The State

J.S. Bedi, J.—This revision has cropped up from the following facts. On the 1st November, 1965, at about 3.30 p.m. Bhagwan Dass, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station Sherpur District Sangrur, was at the bus-stand Ghanauri Kalan when he received information that the petitioner Sham Kaur was tunning a still and distilling illicit liquor. He sent ruq(sic) through Jangir Singh Constable to the police-station, Sherpur, for registration of the case which was in fact registered by Dharam Singh. Station House Officer. The Assistant Sub-Inspector then proceeded to village Badshahpur and joined Ujaggar Singh and Gurdit Singh, members of the Panchayat of that village, besides Simru Chowkidar and raided the house of the petitioner. On reaching there Sham Kaur was found to be feeding fire to the working still. She was caught at the spot and the component parts of the working still were taken into possession besides some illicit liquor and lahn in a pitcher. The lahn was tested on the 5th November, 1986, by Excise Inspector Munshi Ram (P.W. 4) who found the same to be lahn fit for distillation. The petitioner was then sent up for trial.

When examined u/s 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, she denied the allegations against her and averred that the witnesses examined by the police in this case were under the influence of the police and examined Gurnam Singh Sarpanch (D.W. l) and Pala Singh Lambardar (D.W. 2) in her defence. According to the defence witnesses, they were called by the police at the house of Baru, husband of the petitioner, when they found the police arresting Baru, whereupon the petitioner abased the police. It was then that the police arrested the petitioner. The police asked them to give evidence against them about the working still which they refused. It was then that the police called Gurdit Singh and Ujaggar Singh who are the prosecution witnesses in this case.

It was on these facts that the petitioner was sent up for trail u/s 61 (1) (a) and (c) of the Punjab Excise Act. Shri P.C. Singal, Judicial Magistrate. First Class found the charge proved against her, convicted her accordingly and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months besides a fine of two hundred and fifty rupees vide his order dated the 27th March, 1967. The petitioner went up in appeal in the Court of Session which came up before Shri Pritam Singh, Sessions Judge, Sangrur. who dismissed the same on the 31st May, 1957. It is against this order that the petitioner has approached this Court in revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution to prove their case examined three witnesses, namely, Ujaggar Singh and Gurdit Singh besides the investigating officer, Bhagwan Dass Assistant-Sub-Inspector, and Ujaggar Singh out of them has not supported the prosecution case fully although the two other witnesses have supported it in its entirety He submitted, therefore, that under the circumstances the case against the petitioner was some what doubtful and, may be, she was involved in this case because of her picking up a quarrel with the police when they arrested her husband, Baru, in this case. It is however, to be kept in mind that Gurdit Singh is a Panch and of the same village. He bears no ill-will or enmity against the petitioner. His evidence coupled with that of the investigating officer in my opinion, leaves no doubt that it was the petitioner who was running the still on the relevant day and time when the raiding party went there and arrested her. The counsel submitted that it was in fact Barn who was responsible for running the still, but as the petitioner objected to his arrest she was involved in this case. This argument does not cut any ice with me for the reason that if the defence plea now taken was correct the police would have involved Barn also along with the petitioner. Even according to the defence, the illicit distillation was in fact taking place in the house of the petitioner. If the defence witnesses were in fact stating the truth they could have agitated this matter with the higher authorities.

The petitioner''s counsel then drew my attention to section 27 of the Indian Penal Code and urged that the still was being run in the house of Baru, husband of the petitioner, and, therefore, the husband would be responsible and not the petitioner. Section 27 of the Indian Penal Code, however, does not support the above argument. It runs as under-

When property is in the possession of a person''s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person it is in that person''s possession within the meaning of this Code.

* * *

The words "on account of that person" are very significant for oar purposes. There is no evidence on the record of this case to show that she was distilling the liquor on account of her husband. May be, the husband was also responsible for it, but illicit distillation by the petitioner could not absolve her under the provisions of section 27 of the Penal Code. This section covers cases of a different type, for instance, where a master goes out shooting and entrusts his licensed gun to his servant who carries the same for his master. Under these circumstances, it could be said that the possession remained with the master and the servant was carrying the gun on account of his master. In the present case, I do not think that section 27 of the Penal Code has any application. I am, therefore of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly convicted. She is a first offender. The minimum sentence under this section is six months'' imprisonment besides a fine of two hundred rupees the fine is reduced to two hundred rupees but the sentence of imprisonment is maintained.

The order of the Court below is modified only to the above extent; otherwise, the revision petition stands dismissed.