SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Sadhu Singh (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment dated 20.2.1988 and order of sentence dated 24.2.1988 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The petitioner was held guilty of the offence punishable under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.1.1983 Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh along with other police officials was present on the bridge near village Dab-Kheri in connection with patrol duty. On Parkash, Excise Inspector, met him. A secret information was received that the petitioner, who is a resident of village Jogna-Khera, was in the habit or distilling and selling illicit liquor and at that moment was distilling illicit liquor by running a working still at his house. If a raid party is conducted, he could be apprehended. Finding the information to be reliable, a ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded. Thereafter, he along with other members of the police party went to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. The working still was dismantled and its component parts, namely, bricks, two pieces of wood, one pipe, one box of tin, one can of plastic containing illicit liquor and one tin containing 32 Kgs of lahan etc. were taken into possession. A sample was taken from the alleged illicit liquor. The report of the Chemical Examiner was that it was illicit liquor. The lahan was tested at the spot by the Excise Inspector who found it fit for distillation of illicit liquor. It was on these broad facts that the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.

(3.) THE main question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the prosecution has successfully proved that the petitioner was found working a still at his house or not. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of Harpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW2, and Om Parkash, PW1, the two official witnesses. But it is not explained as to why despite secret information having been received and the police party which had to go to the house of the petitioner no reliable public witness was joined. To lend credibility, by way of prudence the Courts have insisted that public witnesses should ordinarily be joined. Necessarily, in the facts when the house of the petitioner is in the village in the middle of the abadi, it is not difficult to join reliable witnesses from the public.