NIRBHAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam, whereby petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are that on 17.03.2011, HC Gurmeet Singh along with other police officials, was present at bridge of minor cananl in the area of village Ratta Khera in connection with patrolling, where HC Gurmeet Singh received a secret information that Nirbhai Singh son of Subeg Singh is in the habit of distilling and selling illicit liquor at his house. If a raid was conducted, he could be apprehended. Finding the information to be reliable, a ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Thereafter, a raid was conducted on the house of Nirbhai Singh. The accused was found present in his house and he was removing hands in the drum of lahan. On measurement, the lahan came to be 120 kg. The case property was sealed with seal bearing impression GS and was taken into possession vide recovery memo prepared on the spot. Accused was formally arrested. Site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The lahan was tested by the Excise Inspector, who found it fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

(3.) The police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) having been filed, copy of the same along with documents attached therewith, was supplied to the accused, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C.. A prima facie case was found to be made out and the accused were accordingly charge-sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. With a view to prove the charges framed against the accused, prosecution examined as many as five PWs, besides producing on record other relevant documentary evidence.