MURLI DHAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment dated 26.4.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby he convicted appellant/petitioner Murli Dhar under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for two months.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that ASI Om Parkash (PW1) received secret information that appellant/petitioner Murli Dhar and his wife Krishna were indulging in sale of illicit liquor. Ruqa (Ex. PA) was sent to the Police Station. Formal FIR (Ex. PA/1) was recorded at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. ASI Om Parkash (PW1) joined Prabhu Ram H.C. (PW2) and two other constables in the raiding party. On the way, an independent witness Hoshiar Singh was joined along with Shri R.N. Chutani, D.E.T.C., Bhiwani. On reaching the house of the petitioner, the police party saw Krishna throwing the illicit liquor across the boundary wall, which had been kept in a Degcha. Thereafter, she ran away. Appellant/petitioner was apprehended at the spot. Disclosure statement (Ex. PB) of the appellant/petitioner was recorded, He disclosed that he had kept 226 bottles of illicit liquor in two tubes in the house of Gurdial Mahajan. The house of Gurdial Mahajan was in his possession. Recovery was effected. Six jerricans (Ex. P1 to Ex. P6) and two tubes (Ex. P7 and Ex. P8) were taken into possession.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the disclosure statement (Ex. PB) made by the petitioner is not admissible in evidence. Illicit liquor, as per prosecution version, was thrown over the wall by Krishna, wife of the petitioner. Krishna has not been charged for any offence. Thus, no illicit liquor could be recovered from the appellant/petitioner and the disclosure statement (Ex. PB) was a fictitious document. The illicit liquor has been planted on the petitioner. Learned Counsel further argued that the disclosure statement (Ex. PB) only states that illicit liquor was lying in the house. It was only in the knowledge of the appellant/petitioner. The other portion of the disclosure statement (Ex. PB) that he was in possession of the house and he had kept the illicit liquor, is not relevant and is not admissible in evidence. There is a flaw in the evidence led by the prosecution as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to lead his defence evidence.