Gurmukh Singh alias Gomi vs State of Punjab

G. S. Chahal J.

Gurmukh Singh alias Gomi, revision petitioner was tried before Shri L.R. Roojam, Judicial Magistrate I Clases, Dasuva, for offence under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short the Act) for having worked a still for distilling illicit liquor and under section 61(1) (a) of the Act for having kept in his possession one drum containing to kgs of Lahan fit for distillation. He was convicted for both the offences and awarded sentences as under :

For the first count, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/ or in default thereof, further RI for three months, and

For the second count, RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default thereof, further RI for three months.

Appeal against the order of conviction and sentence was heard by Shri S. K. Chopra, Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur who accepted the same under section 61(i)(a) of the Act and acquitted him of the charge, but dismissed the appeal with respect of the offence under section 61(1)(c) of the Act by affirming the order of conviction and sentence,

According to the prosecution version on 2821983 a Police contingent of Head Constable Inderjit Singh, Constables Ram Pai, Ram Singh and Gurcharan Singh etc. under the overall supervision of SubInspector Sohan Lal had gone to village Tahli, for excise checking. There two separate parties were formed. One raiding party of Constables Ram Singh, Ram Pal and Gurcharan Singh under the charge of Head Constable Inderjit Singh left for Mand area. They found smoke emerging out of the wild growth, along the river embankment. The party surprised the petitioner and found him working a still and distilling liquor. The still was cooled and its components were taken into possession. A sample was drawn from the illicit liquor and was separately sealed. The remaining liquor and the boiler drum sealed and recovery memo Ex. PA was prepared A case was got registered by means of Ruqa Ex. PD.

On further interrogation by HC Inderjit Singh, the petitioner made a statement disclosing his possession of a drum of Lahan. On the basis or that statement the petitioner led to the recovery of drum Ex. P15 containing 150 kgs of Lahan. This drum was also sealed. The contents of boiler drum and the drum of Lahan which were separately recovered, were got tested from Excise Inspector Satpal Singh who certified the boiler drum to be partially distilled Lahan, fit for further distillation and the contents of Ex. P15 to be of Lahan. His report to this effect is Ex. PJ. The sealed sample of liquor was sent to the Chemical Examiner who certified the same to be liquor of illicit origin. Both the cases were then jointly tried.

The prosecution examined PW I HC Inderjit Singh and Constable Ram Pal (PW2) to prove recovery and Excise Inspector Satpal Singh (PW3) to prove the contents of the boiler drum and the other recovered drum. The plea of the petitioner was of false implication.

With respect to the recovery of working still by HC Inderjit Singh, his statement is sought to be corroborated by that of Constable Ram Pal. A perusal of the evidence, however, shows that the testimony of Constable Ram Pai was clearly contradictory to that of the Head Constable, with respect to the place of recovery. While according to HC Inderjit Singh, there were Sarkandas on three sides and a rivulet on the fourth side, according to the statement of Constable Ram Pal, there were wheat fields on the eastern side of the spot, while on all the other three sides there was rivulet. The learned Magistrate has covered up this contradiction in their statements on the basis that some people might have cultivated wheat crop on one side of the people of occurrence and this fact might have escaped notice of the Head Constable. This explanation has also been endorsed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am, however, unable to concur, with this finding of the two Courts below. The Head Constable prepare the site pal Ex. PP and therein place of recovery has been shown as surrounded by Sarkandas on the bank of the rivulet. The Head, Constable must have prepared the site plan at the spot and there was little chance of his forgetting to mention the wheat fields, describes by Constable Ram Pal. The statement of the Constable, thus, runs counter to what is stated by the Head Constable and this discrepancy cannot be lighty ignored.

The Act has provided stringent punishment for the offence of distillation of illicit liquor and to prove such an offence, strong piece of evidence is, required. I am of the view that fouler the offence stronger should be the evidence. The Head Constable is a petty Police official and a clear corroboration, with respect to all the aspects of the, recovery shall be expected before his testimony is accepted. I am, thus, of the view that the prosecution case is not free from reasonable doubt. The orders of conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.

In the result I accept the revisionpetition and set aside the orders of conviction and sentence. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.