SINGARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Haryana. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 1.5.1987 dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.5.1984 ASI Chaman Lal along with HC Kanshi Ram and C. Narinder Singh were present at Bus Stand Masana. They were conducting the excise checking. Secret information was received that petitioner Shingara Singh a resident of Masana sells illicit liquor and in case a raid is conducted, liquor or lahan could be recovered from him. On this information, the ASI alongwith his police party went to the fields of the petitioner. The petitioner was present at his tubewell. He was interrogated. The petitioner made a disclosure statement that he was kept concealed a drum containing lahan in a heap beneath toori (fodder) and that he could get the same recovered. His statement was recorded. In pursuance of that statement, he led the police party near that heap. The petitioner got recovered a drum. It contained 100 Kilograms of lahan. After drawing the samples the drum and the sample were sealed. They were deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, the representative sample was sent for chemical analysis. The report revealed that it was lahan fit for distillation. This led to the filing of the challan in court.

(3.) PERUSAL of the record shows that one Karta Ram was a public witness and had joined the police party. According to the prosecution version the recovery was effected in his presence including the disclosure statement made by the petitioner. In court the witness took a somersault assault and did not support the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence of the prosecution comprised of ASI Chaman Lal and HC Kanshi Ram. Both official witnesses did support the prosecution version. When the public witness does not support the prosecution case, extra care and caution is required while scrutinizing the testimonies of the official witnesses. It is not that no conviction can be based on the testimonies of the official witnesses but the facts of each case will have to be weighted on their own merits.