PUNJAB SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 48 of the Excise Act by the Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, by his judgment dated March 31, 1970. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, Vide his judgment dated November, 9, 1971, has upheld the conviction and sentence. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu.

(2.) THE prosecution story briefly put was that a raiding Excise party searched the house of the petitioner in village Satraian Tehsil R. S. Pura on January 6, 1970. In the course of the raid it was found that the petitioner had a working still in his house from which illicit liquor was being distilled. A pitcher with illicit liquor and four tins of liquor and some liquid material for preparing illicit liquor was recovered and seized by the Raiding Party. A complaint under Section 48 of the Excise Act was accordingly filed in the Court of Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, against the petitioner. The prosecution produced in support of its case Rattan Chand, Excise Inspector, Narinjan Singh, Excise Guard, Gurbaksh Singh, Chhajju Ram, Prithi Pal Singh E.T.O. Vaishno Dass and Jagmohan Gupta, Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, R. S. Pura. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and examined Devi Dass and Maghar Ram, two witnesses in defence. The trial Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence found the petitioner guilty of an offence under section 48 of the Excise Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 300/ - The petitioner was directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, who again examined the evidence, believed it and upheld the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial Magistrate. This revision as stated earlier calls in question the orders of the courts below and it is submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is not legally sustainable.