MAHLA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahla Singh has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence by the Courts below.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are that on July 4, 1976 at about 7.30 A.M. a Police Party headed by Bhallan Singh Head Constable and accompanied by Nagore Singh Head Constable and a few Constables of Police Station Sardulgarh, was returning from village Jhanda Khurd. When they reached near the bus -stop of village Jhanda Kalan, they saw the accused -petitioner coming from the side of the link road. On seeing the police party he tried to go back. This aroused the suspicion of the police party. He was stopped. His person was searched and he was found carrying a rubber tube concealed in a gunny bag and containing illicit liquor. A sample was taken out of this liquor. The remaining liquor was transferred into 13 bottles. The sample as well as the bottles of liquor were sealed. A case was registered against the accused -petitioner. On receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, that the sample, sent to him, contained illicit liquor, the accused -petitioner was challaned. He was tried and convicted by the learned trial Court under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Dissatisfied with this order, the accused filed an appeal and the learned Sessions judge affirmed the findings of the learned trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr. Pawan Bansal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that on that very day after the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor, Lahan was alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner was challaned for the possession of illicit liquor in this case. He was also challaned in the other case for the possession of Lahan. According to the Learned Counsel, in view of the provisions of Sec. 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner could not be tried in this case. There is no merit in this contention. The illicit liquor is alleged to have been recovered first of all and the petitioner had been tried for that offence. There is no bar for the trial of the petitioner for this offence. If any argument was available, at all, to the petitioner that could be regarding the second case. In that case the accused -petitioner has already been acquitted.