KULDIP CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, on 7.9.2003, a police party headed headed by ASI Parkash Singh ( PW2) and consisted of other police officials, received a secret information to the effect that petitioner-convict Kuldip Chand was distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still in his residential house and if raid is conducted immediately, he can be apprehended along with operatus of working still. Finding the information credible, he sent ruqqa (Ex.PA) to the police station for registration of the case. Thereafter, he prepared the raiding party, conducted raid on the disclosed house, where the petitioner-convict was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor by operating the working still in his house. According to the prosecution that in the wake of search, lahan of 180 kgs. and plastic can, containing 20 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. The parts of the working still were separated and taken into possession, vide recovery memo (Ex.PB).

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner-convict was operating the working still, 180 Kgs. of lahan and 20 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from his residential house. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of indicated recovery, the present case was registered against the petitioner-convict, vide FIR No.138 dated 7.9.2003, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under section 61(1)(c)(i) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") by the police of Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

(3.) After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC. Consequently, the petitioner-convict was accordingly charged for the commission of pointed offence and the case was slated for prosecution evidence by the trial Magistrate.