KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the view expressed in two single Bench decisions of this Court reported as Gardawar Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 240 and Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab 1976 Chand LR (Cri) 81 (both by the same learned Judge) has been challenged bo -fore us in this reference primarily on the ground that the observations therein run counter to those made by their Lordships in Sri Chand Batra v. State of U. P. . , AIR1974 SC 639 , 1974 Crilj590 , (1974 )4 SCC247 , [1974 ]2 SCR821 , 1974 (6 )UJ149 (SC ).

(2.) KARTAR Singh petitioner was brought to trial under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act for being in possession of a working still and was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Zira and sentenced to the minimum punishment provided under the law, namely, six months rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 200.00 on the 21st of Dec. 1972. The conviction and the sentence of the petitioner were upheld and his appeal dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his detailed judgment of the 17th of July, 1973. The petitioner thereafter preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) WHILST in the witness -box P. W. 2 Gurdial Singh further deposed that he was distillery trained and has an experience of 13 to 14 years and further that he had occassion to test lahan (wash) in innumerable cases. In a lengthy cross -examination directed against him by the counsel for the petitioner, the competency of the witness to opine about the lahan (wash) was not even remotely challenged nor was any issue joined regarding the composition or the strength of the liquid allegedly recovered from the petitioner. This was particularly so in the context of the defence taken on behalf of the petitioner that no recovery whatsoever was made from him and that he had been called along with some other persons from his village and falsely implicated in the case. Equally in this context it deserves notice that no contention was raised before the trial Court that the contents of the drum did not contain lahan. Both in the grounds of appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur as also in the grounds of de -vision in this High Court, no such point either expressly or impliedly was raised that the liquid recovered was something other than lahan (wash ).