CHANAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANAN Singh revision petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by Shri G.S. Dhiman, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar and, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine be was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Chanan Singh, filed an appeal against the judgment recording his conviction, which was dismissed by Shri Mewa Singh, Sessions Judge, Faridkot as per judgment dated 2.5. 1986.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief are that on 22.8.1984 A.S.I. Ram Lubhaya along with other police officials wag present at bus-stand of village Aulakh were he received secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor in his residential house. After a ruqqa was sent to the police station for registration of a case the police party raided the house of the petitioner. He was found distilling illicit liquor by working a still. The still was cooled and dismantled and articles of still were taken into possession which included a drum containing 80 kilograms of Lahan used as a boiler. The articles of still were seized vide memo Ex. PB and subsequently the contents of boiler were got tested by Excise Inspector Gora Lal.

(3.) THE case of. the prosecution rested on the testimony of Excise Inspector Gora Lal PW1, Head Constable Satish Chander PW2 and A.S.I. Ram Lubhaya PW3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that police party while present at a bus stop had received secret information about the distillation of illicit liquor by the petitioner and there was ample time and opportunity to join independent witnesses but none was associated. The testimony of police officials who were interested in the result of the case could not be considered as impartial or unbiased especially when the police party conducted it house raid on receipt of secret information against the petitioner. There was breach of mandatory provisions of Section 100 Cr. P C. and in these circumstances conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained. In support of his contention the learned counsel Shri G.S. Dhillon placed reliance on the case Rattan vs. The State of Punjab, 1984(1). Recent Criminal Reports 305 : 1984 (2) C.L.R. 538. In this case also the allegations against the petitioner were that he was found distilling illicit liquor by working a still in his house and the prosecution rested solely upon the evidence of official witnesses. It was observed :-