SUBEG SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inside his field towards the west of village Thai in Police Station, Asandh of Karnal District in Haryana State accused petitioner Subeg Singh was found working a still for distillation of illicit liquor around 3.00 p.m. on April 11,1982. On being prosecution for it under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act I of 1914, vide its impugned judgment dated December 18, 1985 the learned trial court convicted him of the offence with which he stood charged and vide sentencing order dated December 19, 1985, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the convicted accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Criminal Appeal No.1 of 1986 filed against it before the learned lower Appellate Court was dismissed by it on April 17,1986. Hence the Criminal Revision No. 581 of 1986 in this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mrs. Sushil Dogra, Advocate, with Mr. R.C. Dogra, and Miss Nivedita Dogra, Advocates, for the petitioner, Shri D.S. Bishnoi, D.A.G. Haryana for the respondent State and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

(3.) Two cases with FIR Nos. 119 and 120 were registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Asandh on April 11, 1982. Both these cases were under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act; one in respect of the Lahan recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement made by the accused and the other in respect of the working still. In the lahan case, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial court on October 20, 1986 disbelieving the deposition of Investigating Officer Udey Chand and Excise Inspector Yash Pal. It is an irony of fate for the petitioner that the same witnesses have been believed against him by the learned trial court in the case of illicit distillation in spite of want of association in investigation by the Investigating Officer of independent witnesses of the locality, link evidence in respect of seals on incriminating substances having not been tampered with; while these articles were in custody at the Malkhana or in the course of transit to the office of Chemical Examiner having not been produced and the Investigating Officer having retained the seal used for sealing the incriminating articles with himself after use for two days, till the sample articles reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. All the three circumstances narrated above sound the death- knell of the prosecution case set up against the accused-petitioners.