Sukha Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

The petitioner Sukha Singh was charged under S. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for having been found in possession of a tube, Exhibit P.2, containing about 45 bottles of illicit liquor, before the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, and having been found guilty thereof, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, in a lucid and considered judgment repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and maintained his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

It is unnecessary to recount the facts. The prosecution evidence, which has been unreservedly accepted by both the Courts below, primarily consists of the testimony of Constable Mohinder Singh, HeadConstable Amarjeet and Assistant SubInspector Hari Chand. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence.

Mr. A.K. Jaiswal, appearing for the petitioner, has not been able to make much dent in the prosecution case. The learned counsel, however, contended that the conviction of the petitioner has been rested primarily on the evidence of the aforesaid three official witnesses and as such his conviction cannot be sustained without some independent corroboration. In support of the argument reliance was placed on two decisions. Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 249, and Shangara, Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 Chandigarh Cri. Cases 22. Both the Courts below have held these witnesses to be completely disinterested and independent. They have not been shown to have any hostility or animus against the petitioner to falsely implicate him on a serious charge. It was then contended that no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to join any independent person from the public. This argument is misconceived. The Investigating Officer was clearly stated that on his way from the canal bridge upto the field of the petitioner nobody met him and, therefore, he could not join any witnesses from the public in the raiding party. Be that as it may, I find myself in agreement with the view taken by the Courts below that any attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to join some independent witness from the public would have frustrated the purpose of the raid on account of the leakage of the secret information. I have gone through the aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel. I am afraid, the facts of those cases are quite different and the ratio arrived at on the basis thereof is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. The alleged discrepancies in the evidence are nothing but may be labelled as the discrepancies of the truthful witnesses deposing after about 21/2 years.

Finally, Mr. Jaiswal pressed for the release of the petitioner in terms of S. 360 of the Code Criminal Procedure. I am of the opinion that the beneficial provisions of S. 360 of the Code cannot be extended to cases of this kind. Recovery of as many as 45 bottles of illicit liquor was effected from the petitioner and that was obviously for commercial purposes. This offence has assumed meaning proportions and requires curbing with heavy hands. To release such offenders on their execution of bonds is to dilute the deterrent effect of the sentence provided under the Act.

In the result I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.