NATHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATHA Singh was charged under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha for having been found in possession of a tube containing about 82 bottles of illicit liquor and having been found guilty thereunder, he was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in a lucid and considered judgment repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and maintained his conviction and sentence. Hence the revision.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts. Mr. G.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to seriously dislodge the considered findings of the courts below. It was sought to be contended that the conviction of the petitioner has been rested primarily on the testimony of the official witnesses namely Preet Pal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector PW1 and Kashmir Singh Assistant Sub Inspector PW2 and as such his conviction cannot be sustained. Both the Courts below have held these witnesses to be completely disinterested and independent. They have not been shown to have any hostility or anumus against the petitioner 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. This argument is misconceived because it emerges from the evidence on record that when the police party was going towards village Duhewala, the petitioner was found standing behind a bundle of wheat and on seeing the police party he tried to slip away and on suspicion he was apprehended and a tube containing illicit liquor was recovered from his possession. In such a situation, the police party had no opportunity to join any independent person from the said village.

(3.) FACED with the uphill task of assailing the concurrent findings of fact and the forthright appraisal of testimony by the two Courts below, Mr. Dhillon has been rather half hearted in pressing this revision. The Primary focus of the learned counsel's argument was only 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 the culmination of the appeal and the 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. It is ordered accordingly.