GAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAJJAN Singh and his wife Bhagvan Kaur petitioners were charged under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, for being in possession of a working still, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. They were found guilty of the offence and convicted accordingly. Bhagvan Kaur was released on probation while Gajjan Singh was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by an elaborate and lucid judgment upheld their conviction and sentence. They have now come up in revision.

(2.) ON 8th February, 1979, the Assistant Sub-Inspector Malkiat Singh along with Constable Jaspal Singh and others was going in the area of village Majara Kalan along with the bandh of Sutlej river, when he saw some smoke coming out of the sarkandas. The police party raided that place and found that the petitioners were distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still. Bhagwan Kaur was feeding the fire, while Gajjan Singh was handling the receiver tin. On seeing the police party, Gajjan Singh ran away and jumped into the river and crossed it although he was unsuccessfully chased by the policy party. Bhagwan Kaur was apprehended. The working still was cooled, dismantled and thereafter its component parts were taken into possession.

(3.) MR . P.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to make any serious dent in the prosecution case against the petitioners. The testimony of Assistant Sub-Inspector Malkiat Singh and Head Constable Jaspal Singh has been reappraised by me and it is wholly consistent and forthright. The acceptance of the same by both the Courts below is consequently affirmed. The hackneyed argument that since both the prosecution witnesses are officials, their evidence should not be accepted, has also been raised. This has obviously to be repelled in view of the string of authorities that the official testimony is not on a disadvantage and has to be appraised without bias. The learned counsel had to fall back on the rather infinitesimal discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses on matters wholly collateral. The discrepancies pointed out are of the untutored witnesses, whose evidence was recorded after a lapse of about 1/1-4 years.