ACHHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by Achhar Singh (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar, dated 30.11.1985 and the order of sentence of even date and also of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dated 18.2.1988. The learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner quality of the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 17.8.1993 ASI Jagir Singh alongwith ASI Suba Singh, Head Constable Bakhshish Singh and certain other Constables were patrolling the area. When they reached village Chhote Billa, the police party joined Kashmir Singh son of Harnam Singh to be a public witness. The petitioner was seen coming from the opposite side. He was holding a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away but was apprehended on suspicion. The gunny bag contained a tube which contained the illicit liquor. A sample of 180 ml. was taken and the remaining liquor was converted into 60 bottles. The sample and the tube containing the illicit liquor were sealed and so were the bottles. They all were taken into possession vide the recovery memo. Ruqa Exhibit PB was sent to the police station. On the basis of the same, a formal First Information Report was recorded. The rough site plan was drawn and the petitioner was formally arrested. On receipt of the report from the Chemical Analyst, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in the Court.

(3.) AN appeal was filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, rejected the appeal holding that it is not necessary that public witness should always be examined. Relying on the testimony of the official witnesses, the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate were upheld.