BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was apprehended on 17-2-1983 while working a still in the kitchen adjoining his kotha in the area of village Gharachon. Head Constable Darbara Singh on receiving secret information, near the bus stand Gharachon, wrote a ruqa and sent it for the registration of the case. Formal FIR was recorded. He then tried to join independent witness from village Gharachon but none was prepared for the purpose. Thereafter, he alongwith police party proceeded to the Kotha. After cooling down and dismantling the working still by way of which he was distilling the illicit liquor its component parts were taken into possession. Sample was taken out from the receiver bottle and the same was duly sealed. Excise Inspector Gurbans Singh tested the contents of the drum boiler and found the same to be mixutre of Gur, water and kikkar barks and fully fermented lahan which was partially distilled and was fit for further distillation of illicit liquor. Drum was sealed with the seal bearing the inscription GS. After completion of the investigation, report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented and after trial the petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Court of Sessions dismissed the appeal maintaining the sentence and fine.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the kitchen, in which the petitioner was working still for distilling illicit liquor, had no door and, therefore, the petitioner could not be expected to distil the illicit liquor during day time specially when there are other houses nearby. The other argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Head Constable Gian Singh who is said to have made an attempt to join public witnesses, has not been examined so that he could be cross examined in that respect. The recovery took place just in the afternoon. He has placed reliance on Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) Recent CR 6 : 1984(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 538 wherein provisions of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been held to be mandatory. In that case, no independent witness of the locality was joined by the police and the raid was made by a Head Constable and Excise Inspector alongwith some other police officials.

(3.) LINK evidence has also been challenged on the ground that the affidavits Exs. PF and PG have not been verified in accordance with law. The only verification is that the above statement is correct and nothing has been concealed therefrom (SAHI ATTE DARUST).