BALRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the non-production of a part or the whole of the case property in a criminal trial, would by itself, vitiate the conviction of the accused thereafter is the somewhat meaningful issue which has necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.

(2.) ON the 6th of May, 1977, Head Constable Rajinder Singh P. W. 1 and Excise Inspecor Randhir Singh P. W. 2 received secret information against the petitioner whilst on patrol duty. The police party then joined a public witness Sadhu Singh and raided the house of the petitioner in his village Ganna Find. On interrogation by Rajinder Singh Head Constable, the petitioner made a disclosure statement, Exhibit P. A. that he had kept concealed one drum containing lahan in his courtyard under the earth. Thereafter he led the police party to the place of recovery and got recovered drum Exhibit P. l containing as much as 150 kilograms of lahan. This was tested by Randhir Singh, Excise Inspector, who found it fit for distillation vide his report Exhibit p. E. The drum was duly sealed and taken into possession vide memo Exhibit P. B. , and thereafter ruqa Exhibit P. C. was sent to the police station on the basis of which the first information report was recorded and further details of the investigation completed.

(3.) THE trial Court accepted the testimony of P. W. Rajinder Singh Head Constable and P. W. Randhir Singh, Excise Inspector and observed that the defence counsel had failed to point out even a single discrepancy in their statements. No challenge seems to have been raised against the other corroborative evidence, documentary or oral. The bald plea of false implication by the petitioner as also the testimony of his solitary defence witness Malkiat Ram was rejected. It calls for notice that no objection whatsoever with regard to the production or otherwise of the case property was raised before the trial Court either during the proceedings or in the final arguments before it. Holding the petitioner guilty Under Section 61 (i) (a) of the Excise Act, the petitioner wag convicted to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -.