LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-134

PHUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 26, 2003
PHUMAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 9.7.1992, ASI Nachhattar Singh along with other police officials was going in connection with patrolling and when the police party reached near village Gag Kalan, ASI Nachhattar Singh received secret information that the petitioner is distilling illicit liquor by means of working still near Bandh of river Satluj in the area of village Akkuwal and if a raid is conducted he can be apprehended on the spot. The police raided the spot and found that a hearth was dug in the ground on which a drum of lahan used as boiler was put. There was a hole in the centre of drum upon which an earthen pitcher was fitted which was having a hole on the one side. A rubber tube was fitted in the hole of the pitcher. An empty plastic can was lying nearby the working still. A match box, an empty bottle and another drum containing 140 kilograms lahan were also lying there. The working still was dismantled and cooled down. Out of the pipa tin a sample nip of 180 M.L. was separated and the remaining contents on measurement came to 19 bottles which were put in the plastic can. Samples and plastic can were sealed with seal bearing impression. Drum boiler containing 120 kilograms lahan and drum lahan containing 140 kilograms lahan were also sealed.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and find that there is no material illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the courts below. It has been found that the sample seal was found intact before breaking the sample and thereafter the contents of lahan were tested. The argument that there are no independent witnesses is not a ground to reject the prosecution case when there is no motive attributed against the police officials. The statements of the police officials have been found to be reliable by both the courts below. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.