AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh and Mohinder Singh petitioners, were convicted under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rup Nagar, (Camp at Kharar) and each of them was sentenced to one. year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rup Nagar, upheld their conviction but reduced their sentence of imprisonment to 8 months each while maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause. They have now come up in revision.

(2.) ON 24th of February, 1976, Head-Constable Daya Singh alongwith other police official and Excise Inspectors Birpal Singh and Sewa Singh was present at the Tax Barrier, Mohali, in connection with excise checking A car bearing No. PNY 683, driven by Ajit Singh accused came from the side of Chandigarh and it was stopped on suspicion. To gunny bags containing bottles of liquor were recovered from the front seat of the car. Mohinder Singh accused was sitting on the wind seat of the car and from near his seat two more gunny bags containing bottles of liquor were recovered. Four gunny bags containing bottles of liquor were recovered from the dickey of the car. In this way, the 8 gunny bags containing about 186 bottles of licit liquor were recovered. They were of Orange Colour manufactured at Yamuna Nagar Distillery. Samples were taken therefrom which on subsequent analysis was opined to be licit liquor.

(3.) THE only point pressed upon me on behalf of the petitioners is that although the evidence in respect of taking of samples from out of the bottles of liquor recovered and their being sent to the Chemical Examiner and the examination conducted by the Chemical Examiner alongwith his report was produced in the trial Court, yet the same was not put to the petitioners at the time of their examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, and that they were prejudiced thereby, has in my opinion, considerable force. To repel this argument of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the State, however, contended that the petitioners knew the case against them and therefore they were not prejudiced by the absence of reference to the chemical Examiner's report in their examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. The accused might know what the case against him was but the object of section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, is to give an opportunity to the accused to answer each and every piece of evidence adduced and relied upon by the prosecution.