SHIV LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short 'the Act'). Vide the aforementioned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months.

(2.) ON 6.1.1990, sub Inspector Sis Ram (PW-6) alongwith A.S.I. Anant Ram (PW-5) and other police officials were present within the revenue estate of village Rangala Chati in connection with excise checking. In the meantime, a Maruti Van without registration number approached them from the side of village Khori. The police party signalled the van to stop. However, the driver did not pay any heed to the signal and instead drove the vehicles towards the police party. The police officials saved themselves but the van struck against the stones lying on the road. The driver of the van namely; Shiv Lal son of Chabbil Dass, the appellant was apprehended. Upon search, 25 crates of English liquor and 240 bottles of country made foreign liquor and 120 pints were found. Representative samples of liquor were drawn from the bottles, seals affixed and recovery memos prepared. Two number plates bearing Registration No. INC - 6197 were also recovered and taken into possession vide a recovery memo. FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. After investigation, a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the Magistrate. Charges were framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant contends that the appellant was apprehended and recovery effected at 11 AM on 6.1.1990, within the revenue estate of Village Rangala Chati. It is surprising that no independent witness was associated at the police. The absence of an independent witness renders the recovery doubtful and, therefore, the entire story, as set up by the prosecution should be discarded. It is further contended that the witnesses to the recovery, being police officials, were interested in the success of the case and, thus, in the absence of any independent corroboration, the deposition of these witnesses should be discarded.