MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos.596 and 597 of 1992, filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated August 05, 1992, passed by Sh.P.K.Jain, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

(2.) The petitioner was initially convicted by Sh.Gurdev Chand, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated September 30, 1991, for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (1)(c) and 61(1)(b) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and he was sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for six months under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act and was separately sentenced to undergo R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for one month under Section 61(1)(b) of the Act. He had filed two appeals, which were dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated August 05, 1992, passed by Sh.P.K.Jain, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. The conviction and the sentence were maintained. Feeling aggrieved against the afore-stated judgments, he has filed these Criminal Revision Petitions.

(3.) The facts of the prosecution case are that on February 19, 1989, a police party headed by Naginder Singh, Sub Inspector, conducted raid in the 'Bet' area. They spotted three fire-lights. The area was encircled. Three working stills were captured. One was operated by Mangal Singh (petitioner). The other was operated by Sewa Singh. The third was operated by Gurdip Singh. The still operated by the petitioner was dismantled. All its component parts were taken into possession. Liquor was being distilled. 180 Mls liquor was taken out as sample and was sealed in a nip. The remaining distilled liquor was measured, which came to 15 bottles and 570 Mls liquor was put in the 16th bottle. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P.B. The prosecution version further is that the petitioner was interrogated when he was in police custody. He made disclosure statement that he had kept 'Lahan', which he offered to get recovered. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing. He then got recovered 150 Kgs 'Lahan'. Two separate criminal cases under First Information Reports Nos.37 and 38, one for working a still and the other for possession 'Lahan' for the distillation of liquor, were got registered against him. Charge was framed against the petitioner for the offences, mentioned above, to which he had not pleaded guilty and claimed trial.