TEJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAJINDER Kumar petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, for having been found in possession of 29 bottles of illicit liquor and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the first count and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25/- under the second count by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phagwara, on October 29, 1984. The substantive sentences were however ordered to run concurrently. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, after elaborately appraising the evidence upheld his convictions and sentences. Hence the revision.

(2.) ON 20th September, 1982, Head Constable Amrik Singh accompanied by Maluk Singh Constable and others, while on patrol duty, in the area of the approach road leading to village Khothran, apprehended the petitioner on suspicion. He was carrying a gunny bag on his head. On search of the gunny bag, it was found to contain rubber tube containing illicit liquor. 180 ml. of illicit liquor was separated as sample and the remaining liquor was put in 29 bottles. On further personal search, a knife was recovered for the possession of the petitioner which was also taken into possession. The petitioner was separately challaned for the offences punishable under the said Acts. The sample of illicit liquor sent to the Chemical Examiner was subsequently found to be of illicit origin.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that these two official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story which has been narrated above. Mr. S.S. Chopra, appearing for the petitioner has, however, challenged the convictions on the ground that the prosecution rests mainly on the official testimony. The counsel contends that in the absence of any corroboration by a public witness, the conviction cannot be sustained. I am unable to agree. What deserves notice is that the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that in the area of village Khothran, the petitioner was suddenly intercepted by the police party and therefore, there was no occasion for him to join any witness from the public. In this context, the non joining of a public witness is obviously explained and no adverse inference need be raised against the prosecution on his score. It is otherwise now well settled that the official testimony is not to be distrusted merely on at score. A significant factor in the present case is that no hint of animus or interestedness is even suggested against the official witnesses. The convictions of the petitioner thus warrant no interference. The sentence imposed on the petitioner under the Punjab Excise Act being the minimum as prescribed by law has necessarily to be maintained. The sentence awarded to him under the ancillary offence is maintained. The revision petition is without merit and is dismissed.