SURAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURAT Singh petitioner was found in possession of a working still and brought to trial on the same charge before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. He was held guilty under Section 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in a considered judgment upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. He has now come up by way of revision.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts of the prosecution case. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Assistant Sub -Inspector Rishi Dev, Constable Jaimal Singh and Excise Inspector S. K. Goyal. Mrs. Vanita Kataria appearing for the petitioner has not been able to make much dent in the prosecution case. She has, however, urged that the testimony of the aforesaid three official -witnesses alone should not be relied upon to sustain the conviction. I am unable to agree. By now their Lordships of the Supreme Court have repeatedly affirmed that the evidence of the official witnesses has to be weighed in the same scale as any other testimony. The significant thing herein is that these official witnesses are not hold to have any animus or hostility against the petitioner. The cross -examination directed against them has not (sic) anything worth the name which can possibly make a dent in the prosecution case and I would, therefore, affirm the findings of the Courts below and accept the testimony of these witnesses.

(3.) FINALLY Mrs. Kataria, pressed for release of the petitioner in terms of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the opinion that the beneficial provisions of Section 360 of the Code cannot be extended to the cases of this kind. The petitioner was found working the still for commercial purposes. This offence has assumed a menacing proportions and requires curbing with heavy hands. To release such offenders on their execution of bonds is to be dilute the deterrent effect of the sentence provided in the Act.