RANJODH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3-10-1983 Sub-Inspector Harish Kumar, Station House Officer of Police Station, Mukerian, in the company of Inderjit Singh and other Police Officials, was present at T Point, Nushehra Pattan Mukerian on Pathankot-Jalandhar Road. At about 7 p.m., car with registration No. DHX 8977 was seen coming from the side of Pathankot. A signal by torch-light was given and the petitioner was found driving the car which was stopped by him. The petitioner was apprehended and on search of the car a gunny bag was found lying near the seat adjacent to the driver's seat. The bag contained 3 bladders of illicit liquor. From the back seat, 2 gunny bags were recovered. 4 bladders of illicit liquor were recovered from one bag and 3 from the other bag. The same were taken into possession and out of each bladder, a sample was taken out and ultimately, these samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner. The remaining liquor in the bladders was transferred to ten plastic containers which were sealed. On receipt of report Ex. PE from the Assistant Chemical Examiner, the contents of the pints were opined to be illicit liquor with the data Ex. PE/ 1. After submission of the report under S.173 of the Criminal P.C., the prosecution got a charge framed in respect of the offence under S.61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act against the revision-petitioner for keeping in his possession 1,27,500 ml. of illicit liquor on 3-10-1983. This quantity of illicit liquor measures 170 bottles of 750 ml. each.

(2.) The prosecution examined Excise Inspector Sher Singh (PW 1) who was also with the police party and Sub-Inspector Harish Kumar (PW 2). The prosecution gave up HC Atma Singh as unnecessary and tendered Ex. PE the report of the Chemical Examiner and Ex. PE/1 the data given by him affidavits Exs. PF, PG and PH of Constable Joga Singh, MHC Sansar Chand and Constable Santokh Singh respectively. With this the prosecution evidence was closed. The petitioner was examined under S.313 of the Criminal P.C. wherein he simply denied the prosecution allegations. No evidence was produced in defence. After examining the facts of the case, as proved during trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate under S.61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default thereof to suffer RI for a further period of 6 months. The car in which this illicit liquor was carried was also directed to be confiscated to the State. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions, but failed to get any relief.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the prosecution version on the ground that no independent witnesses were joined by the police party, although the same were available. The next argument of the learned counsel is that the case property was not produced before the trial Court. The learned State counsel urges that non-joining the private persons during checking is not fatal and at the most, the statements given by the prosecution witnesses have to be closely scrutinised.