GURMIT @ LAL MITI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 18th June, 1983, A.S.I. Hardial Singh, the then incharge Police Post Kala Sangian, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, after receipt of secret information raided the well of Paramjit Singh in the company of H.C. Ganga Singh, P.W. 3) and Pritam Singh (P.W. 2). Allegedly, illicit liquor was being distilled there under the control of two persons, including petitioner Gurmit Lal. The other who was identified as Paramjit Singh, managed to escape, but Gurmit Lal was apprehended at the spot. The various components of the apparatus after cooling the same down were taken into possession and after usual investigations both Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Lal were challanged and produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Kapurthala. On trial, vide judgment dated 21st December, 1984, both of them were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with a direction that in default of payment of fine the defaulter shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, by the trial Magistrate. On appeal before Sessions Judge, Kapurthala,Paramjit Singh was acquired I giving benefit of the doubt whereas conviction and sentence of Gurmit Lal were confirmed vide judgment dated 5th March, 1985. Gurmit Lal has preferred present revision petition against that order.

(2.) IT has come in evidence, that at the time of interception when liquor was being distilled in gagar, Exhibit P. 4, Paramjit Singh was feeding fire in the hearth, whereas Gurmit Lal was moving his hand on the mud of Sarposh. Exhibit P.2, which was placed on drum, Exhibit P.1, upside down. Apart from the fact that the part attributed to petitioner Gurmit Lal cannot be taken to aid the process of distillation or in any way to control the working of the still, the evidence placed on the record can at the most lead to an inference in favour of process of distillation. Unless it can be proved that the boiler contained lahan and the receiver utensil, that is, gagar, Exhibit PA, contained liquor, conclusion in favour of manufacture of intoxicant by means of a working still cannot possibly be arrived at. To prove the contents of boiler drum, Exhibit P. as lahan, the prosecution has produced Excise Inspector Raghbir Singh (PW.1) He was not present at the time of the raid and is said to have tested the contents on the next day that is 19th June, 1983 in Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala. It is a matter of common knowledge, that case property of number of such cases is always found lying in a Police Station and Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, which controls the area notorious for excise crime bound to have scored of drum containing lahan. The said solitary witness. therefore, was required to prove the identity of the property. Drum Exhibit P. 1 was not shown to E. I. Raghbir Singh while in the witness box. He has neither given any detail with regard to the identifying chit. if any, on the drum. In his statement he does not mention the number and date of the first information report or about the specimen of seal with which the drum checked by him was sealed. He has simply stated that on 19th June, 1963, he had gone to Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, where M.H.C. Ram Parkash had produced before him one drum with seals intact. In this situation of the matter, it cannot be said with certainty if his statement relates to the drum in question or not. There is still another point which reinforces my said conclusion According to, him the contents of the drum checked by E I Raghbir Singh were about 150 Kgs. If we refer to the statements of Pritam Singh (P.W. 2) and H.C. Ganga Singh (P.W. 3), the two witnesses of recovery, they have stated that drum, Exhibit P. 1, which was being used as boiler, contained about 100 kgs. of lahan. This huge difference in the quantity indicates that perhaps the drum checked by E-11 Raghbir Singh on 19th June, 1983, the contents of which were found by him to be partially distilled lahan was different than the one which was taken into possession by A.S.I Hardial Singh on 18th June, 1983, vide recovery memo Exhibit P. 3.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the case of the, prosecution is not free from doubt and conviction and sentence of petitioner Gurmit Lal can neither be sustained. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, conviction and sentence 61 petitioner Gurmit Lal are set aside and instead he is acquitted of the charge against him.