DHUPA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHUPA and Ranjha petitioners have by way of this revision petition challenged their conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month each, under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act.

(2.) AS per the prosecution version, Head Constable Jagdish Chander PW1 on receipt of secret information went to the field of the petitioners along with Head Constable Parbhati Lal and some other police officials. The petitioners were found distilling liquor by means of a working still. The still was a dismantled and the component parts of the still were taken into possession. Some liquor and lahan were also taken into possession. A sample of liquor was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit PX, it was illicit liquor.

(3.) THE evidence of the recovery of the working still consists of the statements of Jagdish Chander Head Constable PW1 and Ram Phal Constable PW3. No independent witness was joined in -spite of the fact that Head Constable Jagdish Chander had secret information against the petitioners and that there was ample time with him to join independent witnesses. The explanation given by Jagdish Chander PW1 that he tried to join independent witnesses but none was prepared to join the police party cannot be accepted at its face. Every citizen is under a legal obligation to join investigation when called upon and on refusal he can be prosecuted. To accept such an explanation in these cases would not be safe. I am of the view that in this situation it would not be safe to record the conviction of the petitioner on the uncorroborated statements of Jagdish Chander Head Constable PW1 and Ram Phal Constable PW2. Consequently I give the petitioners the benefit of doubt and acquit them of the charge. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioners.