HARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two lower courts convicted revisionist Hardeep Singh with offence under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act and sentenced him to Rigorous Im prisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 2000.00. Charge against him was that on 15th August, 1986, he was found distilling illicit liquor. THEre was evidence of recovery wit nesses against him. THEre was also evidence of Excise Inspector, who tested the liquid alleged to have been recovered from the revisionist and found it liquor. THEn there was evidence of Investigating Officer. But there was no link evidence to assure the court that from the time of recovery till production before the Excise Inspector, liquid was kept sealed and safe. Nevertheless it was urged by the learned. AGA that there is testimony of the recovery witnesses that when they reached the spot, they found smell of liquor. But that piece of evidence could have been tested in the court only, on the basis of expert report. Link evidence about safe custody of the liquid alleged to have been recovered was, therefore, necessary. But it was not produced. Now more than four years have elapsed. THE filling up the lacuna at this stage shall not be proper.

(2.) THIS revision was admitted on the point of sentence only. But on account of technical defect pointed out above, conviction cannot be sustained, hence this court is bound to interfere on the point of conviction.