HARDIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hardit Singh has presented this revision petition through jail. He along with the co-accused Khushalsingh was prosecuted for the offences under sections 54 (a), 54, (c) and 54 (d) of the Excise Act. The facts in brief are that on 11-11-67 the Excise Inspector Surjaram having received the information that illicit distillation is going on in the field of Khushalsingh in village Sahajwal, visited the field along with his Jamadar Mansingh and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Shri Ramrakh. They found that the accused persons Hardit and Khushalsingh were operating a working still and necessary instruments and utensils and lahan etc. were lying at the spot. One drum filled with lahan was lying on an oven fitted with a pipe for distillation. Twelve bottles of illicit liquor were also found in two tins. Both the accused persons were arrested at the spot and and all the articles and material were seized. After investigation charge sheet was presented in the Court of Assistant Collector and Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh, who convicted both the accused persons on 4/8/72 under sections 54 (a), 54 (c) and 54 (d) of the Excise Act and sentenced each of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200.00 each. But on appeal their convictions and sentences were set aside and the case was sent back for trial. On separation of the judiciary from the executive the case stood transferred to the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, who by his judgment dated 25-2-75 convicted both the accused persons for the offences with which they were charged. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganager, set aside the conviction and sentence for the offences under sections 54 (a) and 54 (d) but maintained the conviction and sentence under section 54 (c) of the Excise Act. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) The present petitioner is not present besides service of notice.

(3.) I have heard the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. It may be stated that the charge under section 54 (c) of the Excise Act has been amply brought home to the petitioner. The prosecution case is proved by the testimony of the Excise Inspector Surajaram and Mansjngh. Ramrakh, Secretary Gram Panchayat, has supported the prosecution case to the extent of the recovery of the articles from the spot, but he has not supported the prosecution with regard to the presence of the accused persons, though he has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. P/1 and site Plan Ex. P. 2. He has been declared hostile. Despite that the testimony of the other two witnesses, in my opinion is rightly, believed by both the courts below. There is no reason whereby the testimony of Surajram and Mansingh in any way can be discredited. The statement of Surajram is to this effect that the present petitioner along with co-accused Kushalsingh were both operating the working still, though the field did not belong to the present petitioner, but the field was of the co-accused Khushalsingh. This circumstance has further been taken into consideration that on seeing the excise party both the accused tried to run away from the place of occurrence. Thus, the conviction of the present petitioner is founded on legal and unimpeachable evidence, and there are no justifiable reasons to take a different view. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has already served out the sentence.