BAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Baj Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patti dated November 28, 1986 and that of the additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated September 25, 1987. The learned judicial Magistrate had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the court of Sessions as referred to above already.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on September 10, 1983, ASI Madan Lal alongwith other constables was going in the mand of river Beas. It was within the limits of village Karmuwala. The petitioner was seen distilling illicit liquor. On seeing the police party, he ran away. The working still was cooled and dismantled. There was 15000 Mili Litres of illicit liquor in the pitcher. A representative sample was taken. It was sealed. The rest of it was transferred in the tube. The tube, drum boiler and the other drum which contained 100 kilograms of Lahan was also lying nearby. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Rukka was sent to the police station. On basis of the same, formal First Information Report was recorded by ASI Harbans Singh. He prepared rough site plan. Excise Inspector Harjit Singh tested the contents and reported that it was a mixture of Gur, water and Kikar Barks. It was fully fermented lahan, fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After completing the other formalities and receiving even the report of the Chemical Analyst, report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of the courts below urging that no public witness has been joined and in any case there was no attempt made to preserve the case property. In this regard, the necessity of preserving the case property cannot be over- emphasised. It is the duty of the prosecution to preserve the case property till such time the appeal or revision is finally decided. If there is any such event which may prevent the preservation of the case property, the permission of the court should be taken to destroy the said property. One would hasten to add that if the case property is not produced, indeed, in final analysis it had to be seen if any prejudice is caused to the accused-petitioner or not.