IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2005 Date of decision: November 22, 2010 Kashmir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 6.5.2004 convicted the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act') and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (1) (b) of the Act. However, in appeal the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 4.1.2005, sentenced him only under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act reduced the sentence to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 15.9.1999, ASI Atma Ram along with other police officials was present at Beas bridge where he received a secret information that the petitioner was habitual of distilling and selling illicit liquor and if raid is conducted huge quantity of the liquor could be recovered. Believing the information to be correct, ruqa was sent on the basis of which FIR was registered. Accordingly, a raid was conducted, but the petitioner managed to escape. One Bawa Singh was also joined in the police party at the time of raid. 58 bottles of Bagpiper English liquor and two drums containing 50 kgs each of lahan were also recovered. A sample of 180 mls was drawn from each bottle and thereafter, the bottles as well as the drums were sealed with the seal bearing impression “AR” and taken into possession. The samples so drawn were sent for chemical analysis whereupon report Ex.PX was received that samples are of IMFL Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2005 -2- *** (Whisky). On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged under Section 61 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Balwinder Singh, Halqa Raiya (PW1), HC Pargat Singh (PW2), LC Tarsem Singh (PW3), C. Ashok Kumar (PW4), ASI Atma Ram (PW5) and MHC MukhtiarSingh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Mukhtiar Singh (DW1). The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal was dismissed with certain modification in the sentence. Arguments heard. Record perused. Both the courts below have duly appreciated the evidence of ASI Atma Ram (PW5) who has consistently stated in his statement qua the time, place and the manner in which the incident had taken place. Besides, he has also produced in court bottles Ex.P1 to Ex.P50, and drumies Ex.P51 and Ex.P52. That apart, the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PX placed on the record establishes that the samples so sent for analysis were that of IMFL (Whisky). The link evidence is complete. The minor discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not in any way effect the substratum of the case. The power of interference by this Court at this revisional stage are very restricted in nature. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out or detected warranting interference by this court. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. November 22, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge