LAWS(P&H)-1992-7-34

NANAK ALIAS KADDUL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On July 31, 1992
NANAK ALIAS KADDUL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted accused petitioner Nanak was found working a still for the manufacture of illicit liquor inside the residential house in village Nawan Pind of Amritsar District of Punjab State on January 12, 1984. On being prosecuted for it under section 61 (i)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act No. I of 1914 the accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated January 27, 1986 learned trial court convicted Nanak of the offence with which he stood charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1986 filed against it before the learned lower Appellate Court was dismissed on March 31, 1986. Criminal Revision No. 586 of 1986 is directed against the impugned judgments of the learned two courts below.

(2.) I have heard Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri 5.S. Kang, D.A.G. Punjab for the respondent and have perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

(3.) It has repeatedly been held by this Court in Raghbir Singh and another v. The State of Haryana 1990(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 695, State of Punjab v. Gurmel Singh, 199 1(2) Recent Criminal Reports 361, State of Punjab v. Gurnam Singh, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 412 and Gurvel Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1992(1) Criminal Reports, 114 that failure of the Investigating Officer to joint independent witnesses of the locality in investigation sounds the deathknell of the prosecution case set up against accused, conviction based by the learned trial court on the statements of the police and excise officials cannot be sustained and the accused is entitled to secure an acquittal on this score. In line with the ratio of the decisions aforesaid conviction of accused Nanak in the present case also falls through and has to be set aside.