Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Bhalla, J.

On 15th January, 1983, police party headed by A.S.I. Satnam Singh was on its way towards village Manochahal in connection with usual patrol and excise checking. A secret information was received, in pursuance of which accused Bachan Singh was intercepted in his cattleshed, where allegedly he was distilling liquor by means of a working still. At the relevant time he was found feeding fire under the drum boiler, which contained partially distilled lahan. The accused was secured and the working still apparatus was dismantled and taken into possession. From the can in which the liquor was being distilled, sample was taken out and sealed, whereas the rest of the liquor, which measured 3750 mls. was sealed in the can itself. The drum too was sealed and taken into possession alongwith the other implements, in all Exhibits P.1 to P.13, detail of which has been mentioned in the trial Court judgment. A ruqa for registration of the case was sent to Police Station, Jhabal, immediately on receipt of secret information. Case No. 45 was registered against the accused on the basis thereof under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act.

After the recovery of the still, the accused was interrogated by the Assistant Sub Inspector. On said interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement leading to recovery of two drums containing 150 kgs. of lahan each from the cattleshed of the accused. They were sealed separately and taken into possession. That recovery was also reported to Police Station, Jhabal, through a separate ruqa, resulting in registration of Case No. 49 under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act.

On trial, through single judgment dated 13th of August, 1984, Shri D.R. Arora, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, convicted accused Bachan Singh under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as a fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default of payment of which fine he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, and under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months as well as a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, further directing the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by petitioner Bachan Singh was dismissed by Shri Gurdial Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated 11th of February, 1985. Now Bachan Singh has preferred present revision petition.

Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel on behalf of the revisionpetitioner, could not point out any serious defect in the impugned judgment. Apart from the fact that no illegality or impropriety could be pointed out, the contention of nonproduction of any independent witness in the suggested circumstances of the case cannot possibly be used for bringing out any interference. An official witness in the eye of law commands same respect as any other witness and mere fact that a person happens to be an official is no ground for discarding his sworn testimony. It is a matter of common knowledge that general public usually avoids to be associated with the police for making raids on the houses of others, much less covillagers and that too in excise cases. Said contention of the learned Counsel, therefore, does not cut ice with me. No discrepancy touching any material part of the case could either be pointed out. However, to me, it appears that the second case possibly is uncalled for multiplication.

It is clear from the statement of the Investigating Officer that the place raided in Case No. 45 was the cattleshed of petitioner Bachan Singh and no other place and in one of the corners of that shed the still for distillation of liquor was set up and was being worked with all its paraphernalia taken into possession by the police. The accused was also present in the same shed as he was the person who was working the still. After his apprehension he was found to have been interrogated in the same room. The alleged recovery of two drums of lahan in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused was also made from his cattleshed. It is nowhere mentioned if it was a different cattleshed. On the other hand, comparison of the two site plans prepared by the same investigating officer on the same day and at the same time, makes it more than clear that it was the same cattleshed. The marked places in those site plans indicate that possibly the two drums of lahan were also lying by the side of the still waiting for the distillation of their contents. If so, they were part and parcel of the still itself and could be taken as its implements like container, Exhibit P.12, meant for changing water out of the cooler and container, Exhibit P.13, containing water. They were lying by the side of the actual apparatus of the still and were included in it. If the container containing cold water, from which water was to be replaced in cooler, could be treated as part of the working still, there is no reason why the container containing lahan, from which the lahan was to be put in the boiler as the cold water was to be put in the cooler, be not treated to be a part of the same still. Also, the recovery memo. Exhibit P.F., of the second case does not indicate if the drums were completely buried under the earth. It nowhere suggests if there was any earth over the gunny bag with which the mouths of the drums were tied. As such, the drums were visibly there and the Investigating Officer could lay his hands at them without any active assistance of the accused. In this situation of the matter when it is mentioned therein that the accused led the police party to the drums, it is nothing but a formality and amounts to giving a garb of discovery to an ordinary case of recovery simply to pin down the accused with those articles to make them look separate from the apparatus of the working still. In this situation of the matter, I am of the opinion, that separate conviction and sentence of accused Bachan Singh under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act in the second case cannot be sustained. The same are, therefore, set aside. The sentence awarded in the first case being minimum provided under law does not call for any interference by way of reduction either. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, therefore, are maintained. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.