STATE Vs. AMAR SINGH SUNDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal from the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur, setting aside the conviction of Amar Singh by a Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that on 14th August, 1960, Sardara Singh Sub Inspector organised a raiding party on receipt of information and he proceeded to village Sadhamajra from where Charan Singh and Ishar Singh also joined him. The party then raided the havell of Amar Singh (respondent in this Court) and found him-working a still and distilling illicit liquor in his koth. The trial Magistrate convicted him under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine months and also a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of which he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not go into the merits of the appeal but allowed it on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The reason for holding the trial Magistrate to have acted without jurisdiction is that under Section 75 of the Punjab Excise Act, no Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 61 except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an excise officer and that the report of an excise officer as contemplated fay Section 75 must be a report different from a report forwarded' under Section 173 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance for his view was placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on A. P. Misra v. The State ; Prem Chand Khetry v. The State ; State v. Bhagwana and Ghisia v. State.

(3.) IT is this view of law which calls for determination in the present case. As a matter of fact connected with this case are quite a number of other cases in which the Court below seems to have taken the same view and the decision of this case (Criminal Appeal No. 697-61) would cover all those cases.