AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Singh, revision -petitioner has come up in this revision against the order dated 20 -5 -85 of Shri S.K. Chopra, Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction dated 22 -8 -84 passed by Shri Lakhbir Singh, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Dasuya for an offence under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentence of 2 -1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - or in default, further RI for 3 months was dismissed.

(2.) THE prosecution version, briefly narrated, is that on 6 -7 -1982 in the early hours of the day, the Police and Excise Staff, which included ASI Sukhbir Singh, PW1 and PW2 Excise Inspector Sher Singh etc., held Naka at the Railway Level Crossing in the area of village Puaram. A truck (No. PEN 7897) came there from Pathankot side. A torch signal was given to stop it. The Vechicle stopped, but the driver made good his escape. The party found Amar Singh petitioner sitting body portion of the truck. At that time, he was holding a gunny bag in his right hand, and keeping another gunny bag under his right thigh. On search, both the gunny bags were found to contain bladders filled with illicit liquor. The gunny bag in his right hand contained 6 bladders, while that under his right thigh 7 bladders. Samples were drawn and the remaining liquor was transferred into empty bottles. Each of the bladders was found to contain 20 bottles of liquor. After sealing the samples and other bottles, the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. Ruka Ex. PC was forwarded to the police station and formal FIR Ex PC/1 was regtistered. After completion of investigation. The petitioner, along with Sukhpal Singh (who had been identified to be the driver of the truck), was sent up for trial. The learned Magistrate acquitted Sukhpal Singh, driver, but held the petitioner guilty of the offence and convicted him, as indicated earlier. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THERE is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution version is incredible. As per version of the prosecution, the truck had stopped on the basis of signal given by the Naka Party and after stopping the truck, the driver started running. The Naka Party must have raised some voices asking him to stop and as such, there must have been commotion making Amar Singh alert. It becomes difficult to accept that the petitioner remained sitting with one gunny bag in his right hand and the other under his right thigh to wait for the Police to come and apprehend him. It appears that some improvements in the real situation, had been made by the investigating officer to ensure that the petitioner was held to be in possession of the incriminating liquor. The natural instinct with the petitioner would have been to try to get away from the truck after it had been stopped by the Police. Obviously, a criminal is always vigilant not to be caught napping. With this background with respect to the prosecution version, absence of an independent corroboration acquires a great significance. I, thus, hold that it will not be safe to base conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the official witnesses with respect to a recovery based on a version which is highly incredible. I hereby accept the revision and after setting aside the order of conviction and sentence, acquit him of the charges. Fine, if realised, shall be refunded to him. Petition allowed.