KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower Appellate Court. The petitioner came up in revision to this court and the revision was admitted on 23rd February, 1983, by Surinder Singh, J. Since then the petitioner has been on bail.

(2.) THE main contention raised by Mr. R.S. Ghai learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the evidence in this case consists of only Excise Inspector Tarlochan Singh and Assistant Sub -Inspector Nachhattar Singh. Although it is on record that they had ample opportunity of joining some independent persons but they failed to do so for reasons best known to them. They have deposed in the Court that while they were going to conduct the raid they passed through a number of villages but they did not join anybody on the way nor did they join anybody from the place from where they had started. Mr. R.S. Ghai, has further pointed out that the statements of these two official witnesses are discrepant on a material point like the place of recovery itself. Tarlochan Singh PW stated that the working still was found in a khaitan three or four feet deep towards the southern side of the canal. On the other hand, Assistance Sub -Inspector Nachhattar Singh stated that it was on the ground level and on the western side of the canal. Apart from this, Mr. R.S. Ghai, has also pointed out that although the case -property was produced in the Court but there was no identification mark on the same. I think that in a case where a minimum sentence of imprisonment for one year and of a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - is prescribed the Court should insist on a better standard of proof. Consequently, I give the petitioner the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charge and set aside his conviction and sentence. The fine, if paid, would be refunded to him. Petition allowed.