DHARAMBIR ALIAS DHARAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for keeping in his possession 100 bottles of illicit liquor in a plastic tube within the area of village Sundh, Police Station Tauru on 8.11.1986. After trial, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo civil imprisonment for three months.

(2.) ON appeal, the conviction and sentence was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 12.7.1999. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) SHRI K.S. Chauhan, DAG, Haryana submitted that mere non-production o the case property in the Court does not make the case of the prosecution doubtful. He contended that the case property is mere corroboration to the version given by the recovery witnesses. He contended that mere non-production of the case property is not a ground of acquittal. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon Balraj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 Crl.L.J. 1374. He further submitted that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they have refused