DIPA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muktsar, dated 28th February, 1987, holding the petitioners guilty for an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. This order of conviction and sentence has been affirmed in an appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 22nd April, 1988.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 1.1.1986 ASI Mukhtiar Singh, ASI Sher Singh and Constables Bikkar Singh and Jasbir Singh were present on the bridge of pucca canal in the area of village Bhullar in connection with patrol duty. ASI Mukhtiar Singh received secret information that Dipa Singh and Bachan Singh, the petitioners herein, were distilling illicit liquor by running a working still by the side of the passage of Sem Nala within the area of village Bhullar and if a raid was to be conducted they would be apprehended red-handed. On the basis of this information, ASI Mukhtiar Singh sent information to the police through constable Jasbir Singh, upon which a formal first information report was recorded. The rest of the police party reached the spot and found both the petitioners distilling illicit liquor by running a working still at that time. Whereas Dipa Singh accused was feeding the fire, Bachan Singh was changing water in the cooler. Both the petitioners were arrested. The still was dismantled after being cooled down. One nip measuring 180 mls. was taken out as sample from the tin container which was being used as receiver. The remaining liquor in the receiver was found to be 15 bottles on being measured. The liquor so measured was put in a tube lying nearby. The drum boiler contained 150 kgs. of lahan. Three other drums were found lying which also contained 150 kgs. of lahan each. After completion of the formalities, challan under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act was put up against the petitioners.

(3.) IN view of this Court, there is no rule that the prosecution version whenever it may be based exclusively on official witnesses must, as such, be rejected. All that perhaps can be said is that in this situation, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be scrutinised with more care and caution. Concededly, in the present case all the prosecution witnesses have given sufficient details of the occurrence leading to the arrest of the petitioners and nothing at all is elicited from their cross-examinations that may detract from their sworn testimony.