Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Date of decision. 27.02.2009 Sheela alias Sushil son of Satpal resident of village Singhana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ........ Respondent 2. Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 Date of decision. 27.02.2009 1.Karan Singh son of Zile, 2.Oma son of Maman, Both residents of village Singhana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. ....... Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ........ Respondent --- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:Mr. P.P.S. Duggal,Advocate for the revision-petitioners. Ms. Naveen Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. **** Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --2-- Sham Sunder, J. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision Petition 1981 of 2002, filed by Sheela alias Sushil, and Criminal Revision Petition No. 2226 of 2002, filed by Karan Singh and Oma, against the judgment 13.09.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jind, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.05.2001, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon (Jind), convicting the accused (now revision-petitioners), for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and awarding them sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each, which was paid. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.12.1996, Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, of Police Station Safidon, alongwith other Police officials, was present, at the Bus Stand of village Singhana, in connection with patrol duty, when a secret information was received, that Karan Singh son of Zila, Oma son of Maman and Sushil @ Sheela son of Satpal, residents of village Singhana were Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --3-- distilling illicit liquor by means of working still and, if a raid was conducted, they could be apprehended/red handed. On receipt of this information, ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. A raiding party was constituted, which was headed by Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. The said raiding party reached the aforesaid place. Karan Singh, accused was feeding fire, in the hearth (chulha ), Sushil, accused was changing water in the cooler (degacha) and Oma, accused was putting the plastic pipe in the rubber tube. The working still was in operation. About 40 bottles of illicit liquor had been distilled, which had been put in a rubber tube. The working still was dismantled and cooled down. The components of the working still alongwith a drum, containing 110 Kgs. of lahan partially distilled and fit for further distillation,the sample, which was taken from the illicit liquor, filled in the tube and the tube, containing the remaining illicit liquor, were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed and taken into possession, vide recovery memo. The accused were arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned. Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --4-- 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Bir Bhan, Head Constable,(PW-1), Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector,(PW-2), Ramesh Kumar, Constable,(PW-3), Atma Nand, Excise Inspector,(PW-4) and Sumer Singh, Constable,(PW-5). Thereafter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --5-- preferred, by the accused-appellants, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.09.2002, by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jind. 8. Still dis-satisfied, the aforesaid revision-petitions were filed, by the revision- petitioners. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Courts below, by relying upon the cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy evidence of Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector,(PW-2), who apprehended the accused, while operating the working still and performing different acts, in relation to the distillation of illicit liquor, recovered a drum, containing 110 Kgs lahan partially distilled and fit for further distillation, 40 bottles of illicit liquor, which had already been distilled, and the other components of the working still, Bir Bhan, Head Constable,(PW-1), a witness to the recovery, and Atma Nand, Excise Inspector,(PW-4),who tested the contents of the drum and found the same to be the mixture of Gur, water and kikar barks, partially distilled and fit for further distillation, rightly came to the conclusion, that the accused were Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --6-- distilling the illicit liquor by means of working still. It is settled principle of law, that while exercising revisional jurisdiction,the Court cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings arrived at by the Courts, were perverse,illegal or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence, produced by the prosecution. In the instant case, the findings, recorded by the Courts below, with regard to the proof of guilt of the accused, are neither perverse nor illegal nor erroneous on account of the mis-reading of evidence. The findings of the Courts below, to the effect, that the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act, do not call for any interference, and deserve to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the revision- petitioners, however, submitted that no independent witness was joined, despite the factum, that a secret information was received against the accused, that they were distilling illicit liquor, by means of working still and, as such, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In the Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --7-- instant case, there is nothing, on the record, that at the place, where the secret information was received, by Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, any independent witness was present, but he was not intentionally and deliberately joined. Even otherwise, immediately, on receipt of the secret information, the first and foremost concern of Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, was to apprehend the accused red-handed. Had he consumed time to join an independent witness, by calling them, from some village, the possibility of leakage of the secret information,thereby defeating the very purpose of raid would not have been ruled out. It was, under these circumstances, that no independent witness could be joined. The mere fact that the evidence of the official witnesses, was not corroborated, through an independent source, could not be said to be sufficient to disbelieve and distrust the same. In the face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the Court is put on guard, to scrutinize the same, carefully and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny of the evidence, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the same does not suffer from inherent infirmities, the same can be believed. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --8-- found to be reliable and trust-worthy. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297 (S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled that the evidence of search and seizure, made by the police will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000) I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:- “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature.” 11-A. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --9-- examined, by the prosecution. It was further held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed. They keep themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves, in it. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non- joining of an independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has been held to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no reason, on their part to falsely implicate the accused, no doubt, is cast on the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. The Counsel for the revision- petitioners, however, placed reliance on Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1985(2) R.C.R. (Criminal),188 in support of his contention that if no independent witness is joined, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. This case was decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --10-- prevailing therein. Even otherwise, in view of the principle of law, laid down in Akmal Ahmed's, State of NCT of Delhi's and Appa Bai and another's cases (supra ) decided by the Apex Court, on the same point, any principle of law, to the contrary, laid down, in Dharam Singh's case ( supra ) ,decided by a Single Bench of this Court, shall not hold the field. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the authority, cited by him, and referred to above. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners that only a part of the case property was produced, in the Court and the same did not bear any identification slip, nor any seal. Even there was no lahan, in the drum and the same was empty. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could not be said that the case property produced, in the Court, at the time of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was the same, as was allegedly recovered, from the accused. He further submitted that it also could Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --11-- not be said that the accused were distilling the illicit liquor by means of working still, as the complete components thereof were not produced. He also placed reliance on Singara Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR(Criminal), 783, in support of his contention. It may be stated here, that the recovery in this case was effected on 25.12.1996, whereas Bir Bhan, Head Constable, (PW-1), was examined on 05.05.1999, Rohtash Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-2) was examined on 29.10.1999 and Atma Nand, Excise Inspector,(PW-4) was examined on 04.09.2000. All these witnesses were examined after a long time and, under these circumstances, if the paper chits, affixed on the case property, underwent the process of decay, and the lahan evaporated, it could not be said that the case property did not stand connected with the case. The prosecution witnesses, identified the case property, produced by the prosecution as the same, as was recovered from the accused. If the complete case property could not be produced for whatever, the reason may be, the case of the prosecution cannot end in acquittal on the sole ground. In Balraj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982, Criminal Law Journal, 1374, a case decided by a Division Bench of this Court, it was held that if the entire Crl. Revn. No. 1981 of 2002 Crl. Revn. No. 2226 of 2002 --12-- case property or a part thereof, is not produced in the Court and no prejudice is shown to have been caused, to the accused, nor any failure of justice occasioned to him on account of this reason, it could not be said that the case of the prosecution was not proved. In this view of the matter, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, from Singara Singh's case (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, thus, being, without merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 15. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the aforesaid revision-petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 03.05.2001, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment dated 13.09.2002, rendered by the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, are upheld. 16. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment promptly, in accordance with the provisions of law. February 27,2009 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE