LAWS(P&H)-1997-1-132

PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 07, 1997
PARTAP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Partap Singh and another directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani dated 15.11.1986 and also the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 23.3.1987 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The learned trial Court had held the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 more months. The appeal as mentioned above had been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that SI Khan Chand along with ASI Bhagat Singh, HC Dilbag Singh and other members of the police force were on patrolling and excise checking duty. A secret information was received that some persons are in the habit of bringing illicit liquor from Rampur Beri and that if a raid is conducted, the illicit liquor can be recovered. a raiding party was organised of the above said police officials. A tractor was found coming from the side of Baralu village. It was stopped. The petitioners were present on the tractor. The search was conducted. Three gunny bags were found tied with two ropes. They were checked. It was found that they contained two tubes and two jerrycans. In all it was found to be 271 bottles of illicit liquor. The samples were taken. They were sealed with the seal of 'CS'. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and it was found to be illicit liquor. On these broad facts, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted.

(3.) IT is not being disputed that the prosecution case rested on the sole testimonies of the official witnesses. Therefore, it had been argued that when public witnesses could be joined and have not been joined, the prosecution case must be taken to have not been established beyond all reasonable doubt.