SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUCHA Singh petitioner was found in possession of a tube containing about 150 bottles of illicit Liquor and he was accordingly charged under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and tried before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot and having been found guilty thereof, was sentenced to 1 -1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/ - on October 25 1983. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, in a lucid and considered judgment repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to 9 months and the fine to Rs. 1000/ -. He has now come up by way of revision.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts. The prosecution case primarily rested on the testimony of Assistant Sub Inspector Shangara Singh P.W 1 Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh, P.W. 2, Head Constable Sansar Chand, C.W. 1, Piara Singh, C.W. 2 and Jaswinder Singh, C.W. 3. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case.

(3.) MR . J.R.S. Gill, appearing for the petitioner has primarily challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution case rests mainly on the official testimony. The counsel contends that in the absence of any public witness, the conviction cannot be sustained. I am unable to agree with his contention. The first point deserving notice is that Assistant Sub -Inspector Shangara Singh held picket at about 12.30 a.m. and he had no prior information against the petitioner. He could not join any public in the picketing party as it was odd hour of the night and, therefore, the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be discredited on this sole ground. Non -joining of the public witnesses is obviously explained and no adverse inference need be raised against the prosecution on this score. It is otherwise now well settled that the official testimony is not to be distrusted merely on this score. The significant factor in the present case is that no hint of animus or interestedness is suggested against the official witnesses. The learned counsel then argued identically the same contentions which were raised before the Appellate Court. For the reasons recorded by the learned Appellate Court, I affirm its findings.