BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N 31.12.1984, the police party headed by A.S.I. Bhajan Singh was present in village Begowal in connection with patrol duty. It received a secret information that the accused was distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still. On the basis of the said secret information ruqa Ex.PA was sent to the police station and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PA/1 was recorded at Police Station, Bholath. Thereafter the police party went to the house of the petitioner where he was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. At that time he was feeding the fire. The working still was cooled down and dismantled and its various component parts were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. The petitioner was arrested. Thereafter he was challaned, charge sheeted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, and tried. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on the record convicted the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the independent witness Mela Singh joined by the police has not supported the prosecution version and rather he appeared as DW.1 in support of the petitioner and stated that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper and that the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below are liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. In such a situation, the learned Deputy Advocate General tried to persuade this Court that the case of the prosecution was proved beyond any shadow of doubt from the testimony of the police officials. The argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General is not tenable in the face of the fact that the testimony of the police officials if read as a whole does not inspire confidence in their truthfulness. The story of the prosecution appears to be imaginary and is stereo type. The prosecution witness could not have appeared in defence so easily unless he had been confident that the accused was innocent. This witness while appearing as D.W.1 stated that he had gone to the Police Station for own work and was made to sign on a blank paper. Such a situation cannot be lost sight. This piece of evidence which goes in favour of the accused-petitioner appears to be more plausible and truthful rather the version of the prosecution witnesses who are interested in the success of their case by hook or crook.