RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Singh petitioner was found seated on the carrier of the bicycle which was being pulled by Des Raj petitioner on 31.12.1980 They were noticed by a police party consisting of Yad Pam. Hari Singh, Ram Kumar, Karan Singh, Dalip Singh Constables in the area of village Nizampur while they were on duty of excise checking Mahabir Prashad, an independent witness had been joined by them both the petitioners were apprehended and Head Constable Yad Ram started the proceedings with regard to the bladdar which was found fitted on the bicycle The bladder was taken into possession and in the meantime one bus belonging to a private concern having registration Dumber RJY 2674 was coming from Rajasthan side. Ram Singh petitioner signaled the bus driver to stop it, Sardara Singh was the Conductor of that bus. In the meantime four to five persons, who were travelling in the bus, got down and Data Rain, driver of the bus turned the bus towards the side from which he was bringing it. Yad Ram P.W. raised an alarm. Two persons come there but they could not do anything. The driver and the conductor come down from the bus and threatened the police party and used filthy language to Yad Ram and other constables and thereafter took away the bus with the accused.

(2.) A case was registered on a report lodged by Yad Ram The liquor in the bladder was poured into 14 bottles. A sample was sent for chemical analysis and report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit P.H. Indicated that it was of counter liquor having different composition as manufactured in the distilleries of Haryana in respect of the ingredients noted therein. I her petitioners along with their accomplices Data Ram driver and Sardara Singh conductor were sent up for trial. The petitioners were charged under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and Sardara Singh and Data Rain were charged under Sections 225/186/353/506, Indian Penal Code. They were tried together and the prosecution examined Hari Singh P.W. 1 Yad Ram Head Constable P.W. 2, Jai Narain P.W.3. Head Constable, Dalip Singh PW.4. A.S.I. Bhagat Singh P.W. 5 and Mahabir Parshad P.W 6. After examining the petitioner and their accomplices under Section 313. Criminal Procedure Code, and after hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 6 1 (;)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay Ft fire of Rs. 250/- each and in &fault to further undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three months. The other accused, since acquitted, were convicted Under Sections 225/186/353, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each section but the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The other accused were, however, acquitted under Section 506, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through tie records. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mahabir Parshad was only independent witness but he did support the prosecution trial' Court in its judgment has ignored the statement of Mahabir Parshad by simply observing as Under :-