KANAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Ludhiana affirming that of the trial Judge whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of payment of which he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution the courts below have held that the petitioner on being apprehended by a police party and on a search being conducted was found in possession of one bladder containing 95 bottles of illicit liquor. A sample was taken from the bladder and the same was sent for chemical examination and it was found to be illicit liquor. The trial Magistrate found the charge proved against the accused and convicted him which conviction was upheld in appeal.

(3.) I have gone through the judgments of the courts below and also the grounds of revision taken by the accused. From the, statements of Tarlochan Singh and Ujagar Singh PWs. it is duly established on the record that the case property was identified by them which is Exhibit P1 to P 96 and that it is the same which was recovered from the accused. Affidavits Exhibits PE PF Provide the necessary link evidence to corroborate the Statement of Investigating Officer Ujjagar Singh. Merely because no independent witness was joined at the time of search and recovery from the accused from the accused does not render the statements of the prosecution witnesses in admissible nor is the recovery doubtful. As rightly observed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the police had no motive to plant this huge quantity of illicit liquor on the accused. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are consistent and there is no material discrepancy in those statements. I am therefore, satisfied that the charge levelled against the accused stood duly proved and that the petitioner was rightly convicted under Sec. 61 (1)(a) of the Act.