BAAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 23.10.1985, HC Lakhi Ram, Constable Phool Singh etc. were present near the dera of Fattuwala in connection with patrolling when he received secret information that the accused was distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still and that if timely raid was conducted on him, he could be caught in the act of distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. Still was dismantled and its various component parts were cooled down. Drum containing 160 kgs. of lahan being used as boiler was lying on the hearth of the still. It was sealed and taken into possession. Similarly receiving bottle containing liquor was sealed and taken into possession. Another bottle containing illicit liquor lying near the hearth of the still was sealed and taken into possession. Other component parts of the still were also taken into possession. Contents of the drum boiler were tested by Excise Inspector R.S. Mali on 25.10.1985 who vide his report Ex. PF found the same to be lahan partially distilled and fit for further distillation of illicit liquor. Vide report Ex. PQ the chemical examiner found the sample as containing illicit liquor. After investigation accused was challaned under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act.

(2.) ACCUSED was charged under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal found the charge proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for 2 months vide order dated 13.7.1987. Baaj Singh went in appeal to the Court of Session. Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 21.4.1988 dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence passed upon Baaj Singh by the learned Magistrate. Baaj Singh has come up in revision to this Court whereby he has assailed his conviction and sentence passed upon him by the two courts below.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that HC Lakhi Ram etc. were proceeding on raiding the accused on receipt of secret information and still they did not join any independent witness with them. It was submitted that HC Lakhi Ram and Constable Phool Singh should not be believed in the absence of independent corroboration as they are police officials interested in the success of the case detected by them. It was submitted that it is not believable that HC Lakhi Ram made effort to join independent witness and no one came forward to join him. There was ample opportunity with HC Lakhi Ram to join independent witness. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are 30-40 houses near dera Fattuwala and if that was so it was not difficult for HC Lakhi Ram to have independent corroboration.