GURDIP SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Gurdip Singh son of Hazara Singh has approached this Court through the present revision challenging the judgment dated January 4, 1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated June 13, 1989.

(2.) THE prosecution version is that on November 14, 1987 Head Constable Kaur Singh alongwith other police officials and Excise Inspector Shri Harmel Singh were present in the area of village Ladbanjara Kalan in connection with the investigation of a case under the Excise Act. There he received a secret information that the petitioner was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor. On the receipt of secret information, a ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/1 was registered. A raiding party was constituted to raid the house of the petitioner. Excise Inspector and Head Constable aforesaid proceeded towards the house of the petitioner. Banarsi Dass, an independent witness was also joined alongwith police party. As per the prosecution, the petitioner on interrogation suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PA to the effect that he had kept concealed one drum containing about 100 kilogram of Lahan under the heap of parali in his field and he could get recovered the aforesaid drum. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. The petitioner was convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) SHRI P.S. Hundal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the present case was not a case where police party had come across the commission of offence by some chance but is a case of an organised raid conducted by the police. In such a situation, Shri Hundal maintains that the association of independent witnesses was required. Shri Hundal further points out that although one Banarsi Dass who was chowkidar of the village had been joint but the aforesaid Chowkidar had not supported the prosecution version and after he was given up by the prosecution the aforesaid Chowkidar has been produced as defence witness. While appearing as defence witness, he not only contradicted the prosecution version but has also given counter version whereby he has specifically stated that the petitioner was arrested from his house and no recovery was effected and that no disclosure statement was made by him.