Swinder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Swinder Singh petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs 5000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the trial Magistrate. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner has come up in revision in this Court.

On 16th December, 1982, Parshotam Lal Head Constable PW 2 along with other police officials and Excise Inspector Amarjit Singh PW. 1 went to village Nag Kalan for the purpose of excise raid. He received secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor. A ruqa, Exhibit PC, was sent for registration of the case. On the basis of the same formal first information report No. 392 of 1982 under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act which is Exhibit PC/1 was registered at Police Station, Majitha, by Sub Inspector Pritam Singh. The residential house of the petitioner was raided and he was found working a still and distilling liquor. All the component parts of the still were taken into possession. The petitioner was arrested and, after due investigation, was sent up for trial.

The petitioner in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded innocence. He stated that he was apprehended from his house and falsely implicated in this case. In defence the petitioner examined Constable Harjinder Singh DW who stated on the basis of the roznamcha that the lodging of the petitioner in police lockup was not mentioned. The copy of the roznamcha entry is Exhibit DB. He further stated that entry No 1 dated 17th December, 1982, showed that one Mangal Singh son of Bela Singh was an accused in'' F.I.R. No 392 of 1982 under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act.

The prosecution evidence consists of only two official witnesses. In spite of the fact that the raid party had secret information and ample opportunity to join witnesses from the public, nobody was joined with raid party. Apart from this fact, the evidence of DW, Harjinder Singh Constable knocks out the bottom of the prosecution case.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the case against the petitioner does not stand proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently this petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The fine, if realized, would be refunded to the petitioner.