AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 280 wordsK.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the lower appellate Court. He has now come up in revision.
The prosecution case in brief is that PW Tarsem Singh, SubInspector, organised a raid party on 3rd July, 1980. In consequence of a raid conducted by the Subinspector the petitioner was apprehended while he was running a working still in the `Mand'' area of village Dhundha.
The prosecution evidence in this case consists of the solitary statement of Tarsem Singh SubInspector, although the police party had gone for the purpose of conducting excise raids but it did not join any person of the public either from Verewal from where it started or from any other village which fell on the way. None from the village of the petitioner was either joined in the raid party. Apart from Tarsem Singh SubInspector, no other official witness was produced by the prosecution although a number of opportunities were given for the purpose. I do not think that it would be safe in this situation to base the conviction of the petitioner on the uncorroborated solitary to base the conviction of the petitioner on the uncorroborated solitary statement of Tarsem Singh SubInspector. Consequently, I give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquite him of the charge under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The fine, if paid by the petitioner, would be refunded to him.
Revision allowed.