MUDDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12.12.1982 on the way from Kalsora to Japti, both villages of Karnal District in Haryana State, convicted accused petitioner Mudda was found in possession of six bottles of illicit liquor contained in a green coloured plastic, Cany. On being prosecuted for it under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, the accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated March 3, 1986 learned trial Court convicted him of the commission of the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and vide sentencing order dated March 4, 1986 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine the convicted accused petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1986 filed against it before the learned lower Appellate Court was dismissed on May 1, 1986. Substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court was, however, reduced by the learned lower Appellate Court to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months only. Aggrieved from the impugned judgments of the learned two courts below convicted accused Mudda has filed Criminal Revision No. 600 of 1986 in this Court.

(2.) I have heard Shri C.B. Goel with Sarv-Shri Rajinder Goel and Ramesh Chauhan, Advocates, for the petitioner, Shri D.S. bishnoi, DAG Haryana for the State and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

(3.) Jai Singh P.W. 2 the solitary independent witness of the locality turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support its case set up against the accused. Second independent witness Jai Lal was not examined by the prosecution. In State of U.P. and others v. Jaggo alias Jagdish and others, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed, A witness who has been named as an eye witness in the First Information Report, if not produced, would seriously affect the truth of the prosecution case. The mere presentation of an application to the effect that a witness had been won over was not conclusive of the question that the witness has been won over. The High Court rightly acquitted all the accused. Obvious inference of prosecution on not examining Jai Lal is that if examined he would not have supported the prosecution case. Failure of the Investigating Agency to examine him thus persuades me to reject the testimony of official witnesses as well.