JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JOGINDER Singh petitioner was charged under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and having been found guilty thereof, was convicted and sentenced to one years's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar not only upheld the conviction but confirmed his sentence. Feeling aggrieved, he has now come up in revision.

(2.) MR . Kirpal Singh, counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to seriously dislodge the considered finding of the Courts below. It was sought to be contended that the conviction of the petitioner has been rested primarily on the evidence of three official witnesses namely Parambir Singh Assistant Sub Inspector Gurmit Singh Constable and Sham Singh Excise Inspector and as such his conviction cannot be sustained. Courts below have held these witnesses to be completely disinterested and independent. They have not been shown to have any hostility or animus against the petition to falsely implicate him on a serious charge. It was then contended that no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to join any independent person from the public. This argument appears to be misconceived. It is borne out from the record that prior to the recovery of five drums containing 200 Kgs. of Lahan each at the instance of the petitioner, illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and in that respect a separate challan was presented and he was convicted. The petitioner was already in the custody of the police in the earlier case and on interrogation by the Investigating Officer, he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the aforesaid drums of Lahan from the specified place of concealment. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Investigating officer to join any independent person from the public.

(3.) FACED with the uphill task of assailing the concurrent findings of fact and forthright appraisal of the testimony by the two courts below, Mr. Kirpal Singh has been rather half hearted in pressing this revision. The primary focus of the learned counsel's argument was indeed on the point of sentence. Herein, there appears to be some scope for reduction. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the delay that had occurred between the occurrence and in the culmination of the appeal and revision, it would meet the ends of justice if the term of imprisonment is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained and it is ordered accordingly.