AMARJIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution alleges that when' in consequence of secret information a raiding party led by S. 1. Gurcharan Singh entered house No. 115, Shakti Vihar Jagvir Singh was found filling bottles with liquor and Puran fixing labels on them while three other persons including the present petitioner namely Amarjit alias Kala were present there. The petitioner, however, managed to escape and was later declared a proclaimed offender. As far as Jagvir Singh and others are concerned, they were tried and convicted by the trial court under sections 61 and 63 A of the Punjab Excise Act but acquitted in appeal on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond doubt. Amarjit surrendered only thereafter and has now applied for quashing of the proceedings against him on the ground that the other co-accused stand acquitted.

(2.) That the petitioner is being tried on the same facts is not disputed. It is also not disputed that appeal preferred by Jagvir Singh and Puran against their conviction and sentence was accepted on the ground that the prosecution version was not worthy of reliance. The question thus is as to whether in the face of this order of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial.

(3.) My attention has been drawn to two judgments namely Ashok Kumar v. State in Crl. R. 49/ 95 decided by a learned single judge of this court on September 13, 1995 in which in similar circumstances the charges and the proceedings were quashed and Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab 19(2) CC Cases 45 (HC) in which similar view had been taken. It appears that in Ashok Kumar vs. State also reliance was placed by the learned single Judge on the said judgment of the Punjab and Harayana High Court. Keeping in view the facts of this case and the judgments referred to above I do not intend to take any different view. Consequently, the charge and the proceedings thereunder stand quashed. This disposes of the petition.