MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, for the offence under Section 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous, imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for four months. His appeal was dismissed by Shri R.L. Anand, Additional Sessions Judge Ferozepur, but for some modification in the sentence, vide his order dated 3-1-1986. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the lower appellate Court, the petitioner has filed this revision

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 5-3-1982, Head Constable Tarlok Singh accompanied by some other police officials was on patrol duty in the area of villages Alipur and Valtoha. When the police party reached the bus stand of village Valtoha, a secret information was received to the effect that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by means of working still in his house and he could be nabbed if a raid is conducted. Thereupon ruqa was sent to the police station for the registeration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Thereafter, the house of the petitioner was raided where he was found distilling illicit liquor by means of working still and at the relevant time, he was feeding the fire under the hearth. The working still was cooled down and dismantled. Its components were taken into possession. Out of the liquor in the receiver tin, 180 MLs. of liquor was taken as sample while the remaining liquor was poured into 10 bottles and then put in a canny. The drum boiler sample nip and the canny were sealed and taken into possession vide a recovery memo. After completion of the necessary formalities, the petitioner was challaned for the above said offence. He was tried, convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

(3.) AFTER close of the prosecution case, the petitioner, in his statement denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication and examined two witnesses in his defence, namely, Joginder Singh (DW I) and Raj Singh (DW. II).