Sukhminder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan. J.—Sukhminder Singh was charged under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for being in possession of a working still, before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar. He was found guilty of the offence and convicted thereunder and sentenced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, by an elaborate and lucid Judgment upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

It is unnecessary to recount the facts. As is evident the case against the petitioner rests on the testimony of the Assistant SubInspector Gulzar Singh, P.W.1 and Constable Balkar Singh, P W. 3. The petitioner pleaded false implication in the case. Desa Singh was examined in defence.

There is no doubt that the said two official witnesses in their statements have fully supported the prosecution story which has been narrated in the judgment under revision but the question is as to how far reliance can be placed on the testimony of these two official witnesses. These witnesses have admitted in their statements that they came across some persons on their way to village Jahangir and that some persons had collected at the time the component parts of the working still were collected from the residential house of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that he made no attempt to join any disinterested witness either on his way to the village or at the place of recovery of the working still. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in not joining with him independent witnesses, though available in the locality, renders the prosecution story highly doubtful against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it will not be proper to sustain the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the testimony of the two said official witnesses as the same loses its evidentiary value on account of the fact that although independent witnesses were available in the locality yet their services were not availed of by the Investigating Officer to witness the recovery.

For the reasons given above, I accept this revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to him.