Swaran Singh @ Kaan vs State of Punjab

Hamohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 14th July, 1984 Assistant SubInspector Reshm Singh along with other police officials, while on patrol duty, received secret information that Swaran Singh revision petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still near the bank of river, Beas. A `ruka'' was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case and the police party proceeded to the specified place where the petitioner was found distilling illicit liquor. He was captured. The still was cooled and dismantled and articles were seized which included one drum containing 100 kilograms of `lahan'' used as boiler. A sample was also taken from the receiver bottle. On return to the Police Station case property was deposited with M.H.C. In due course of time Excise Inspector tested the contents of the drum and found the same to be partially distilled `lahan''. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was tried for an offence under section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act by Shri M. S. Virdhi, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/. The judgment recording his conviction was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal which was dismissed by Shri A.C. Aggarwal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Conviction and sentence. of the petitioner was maintained vide judgment dated 15th May, 1586. It is against this judgment that the present Revision Petition has been filed.

I have heard Shri Sarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent and have perused the record.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case against him was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence against the petitioner consisted of the statements of police officials who were interested in the success of the case and in the fruit of their investigative efforts. The raid was conducted after secret information was received. It was not a case where the police party was patrolling the area, when all of .a sudden, some smoke was noticed and a working still was discovered. The contention of the learned counsel is quite tenable. Statement of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the Investigating Officer had ample time and opportunity to join independent witnesses but no endeavour was made to take anyone into confidence. Head Constable Jasbir Singh who appeared as PW. 2 admitted in this crossexamination that after secret information was received they had seen many persons working in their fields but none of them was asked to accompany the police party. To similar effect was the statement of SubInspector Resham Singh PW. 3. From the evidence on record it is also made out that the police party left their cycles at a place known as Pir Gaji and went ahead on foot. On the way, various persons were available who could be joined in the party to witness the recovery. The very fact that in spite of the availability of the independent witnesses none was taken into confidence nor any explanation was furnished as to why no attempt was made in that respect renders the case of the prosecution as doubtful. It is correct that statements of police officials cannot be discarded simply on account of their official status. Still to remove any doubt regarding the genuineness of the case corroboration from independent source is required. In the case of Baj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 C. L. R. 123 it was held that testimony of official witnesses required corroboration from some independent source in order to sustain conviction of a person of a criminal charge and it was unsafe to base conviction simply on the statements of police officials who were interested in the success, of the case.

Another discrepancy in the case of the prosecution is that the drum which was alleged to be used as boiler had holes and it could not contain any `lahan''. It was not the case of the prosecution that the holes developed in the drum when it remained deposited in the Malkhana. The drum produced in the court was completely empty while when the Excise Inspector tested the contents of the drum he found it having about 100 kilograms of `lahan.'' Whole of the `lahan'' could not vanish within a short period nor the holes could occur in the drum. In the absence of any plausible explanation in that respect, the case against the petitioner could not be said to have been proved beyond doubt nor his conviction could be maintained in these circumstances on basis of police officials and Excise Inspector.

As a result, I accept this Revision Petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. Fine if deposited be refunded to him.