IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1434 of 2003 Date of decision: February 10, 2010 Karnail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 27.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Karnail Singh (herein referred as 'the accused') and Mukhtiar Kaur (non petitioner) filed against the judgment dated 31.8.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 61 (1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act. However, Mukhtiar Kaur (non petitioner) was granted benefit of probation under Section 4 (3) of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. The allegations in nut shell are that on 2.5.1999, ASI Ajay Kumar along with other police officials was present at T-Point Bagheria in connection with patrolling and checking of private vehicles. The accused petitioner Karnail Singh was seen coming on a scooter bearing registration No.PIM 4650, from the side of Bagheria. Mukhtiar Kaur (non petitioner) was sitting on the pillion seat. They were carrying a plastic can on the scooter. On search of the plastic can, the same was found to be containing country made liquor. They could not produce any licence or permit for carrying the same. 180 mls was separated as sample and the remaining on measurement came to be 24 -1/2 bottles. Sample as well as the bulk liquor were sealed separately with the seal bearing impression “AK”. Ruqa was Criminal Revision No.1434 of 2003 -2- *** sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. The accused were arrested, statement of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation challan was presented in the court The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed with certain modification. Arguments heard. The case of the prosecution stands proved from the testimony of HC Gurjant Singh (PW1), Shashi Bhushan (PW2), C. Jaspal Singh (PW3), MHC Nirmal Singh (PW4) and ASI Ajay Kumar (PW5). Findings returned by both the courts below did not smell any illegality warranting interference by this court. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statement of the witnesses, rather these are indicative of their truthfulness. They had no enmity or motive against the accused to implicate him falsely in the case. No plausible defence has been led. Thus, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. February 10, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge