BANTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the Head Constable of Excise Staff and other members of the Staff went to Ismailpur village on 16.10.1984 and found the accused distilling illicit liquor, then the Head Constable dis -mentally the working still and took into possession all the material found in possession of the accused and arrested the accused. On the basis of the report given by him, an F.I.R. was registered and on the completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nakodar. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act and the accused pleaded guilty to the said charge. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined two witnesses and marked certain documents. In a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the accused -petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1986 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The learned Additional Session's Judge vide her order dated 24.2.1987 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the accused -petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court.

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 16.10.1984, the accused was found distilling illicit liquor. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly shows that they found the accused distilling illicit liquor when they were going for excise checking in the Mand area of village Ismailpur on 16.10.1984 at about 4 P.M. Their evidence is self -consisting and does not suffer from any infirmities. Both the Courts below rightly placed reliance on their evidence. I do not therefore, find any ground warranting interference in the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act.