DHANPAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 31.12.1986, the petitioner was allegedly intercepted by the police party headed by ASI Shivdhan, PW.1, near village Kumthala, in the area of Police Station, Ellenabad, district Sirsa, Haryana, while he was coming with a canny containing illicit liquor measuring 20-1/4 bottles. One quarter of bottle was taken out as sample. The sample and the remaining illicit liquor were separately sealed with the seal "SS" and taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA. Ruqa Ex. PB was sent to the police station and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PB/1 recorded. Site plan Ex. PC was prepared. Ex.PD is the report of the Chemical Examiner. After completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned.

(2.) SO , it was on the basis of the aforesaid evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PC, that the petitioner was convicted under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months by the learned Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa. On appeal, the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the version of the prosecution itself is highly improbable as the petitioner is not expected to expose himself by coming towards the place where the police party was present in uniform. He urged that the actual act of conveying the illicit liquor is done in a stealthily manner. No such person would come openly carrying liquor when the police party is nearby. According to him, the story is wholly unreliable and cannot be believed. He also referred to the fact that there is no independent corroboration to the statements of the official witnesses. He pointed out that the learned Courts below have brushed aside the important contradictions which had come in the statements of police officials. Even if one goes through the discrepancies referred to in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, one can be of the view that the discrepancies are material and an inference can be drawn that in fact no such capture was made. Therefore, the discrepancies rendered the testimony of the official witnesses to be doubtful.