CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 676 OF 2002 Date of decision: 10.03.2009 Parvinder Singh ……Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab …..Respondent Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG,Punjab A.N.JINDAL, J All the three accused namely, Parvinder Singh alias Titoo, Gurvinder Singh alias Nita and Raj Kumar, were convicted under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, vide judgment dated 23.04.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for keeping in the possession of 1320 bottles of contaminated liquor. However, in appeal preferred by Gurvinder Singh and Parvinder Singh vide judgment dated 1.04.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Gurvinder Singh was acquitted. As such this is a petition by Parvinder Singh. On 15.11.1994, SI Dev Raj, and other police officials were present in the area of chowk Bhagtanwala, Amritsar, in connection with Excise checking, whereon receipt of secret information, that the petitioner alongwith Raj Kumar and Gurvinder Singh had stocked Excise articles without any license or permit. Finding the information to be reliable raided the disclosed place. On seeing the police party the CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 2 Gurvinder Singh and Raj Kumar(non petitioners) succeeded in fleeing away whereas Parvinder Singh petitioner was apprehended and on search of the premises, 20 card board boxes each containing 20 bottles of “Bagpiper Gold” whisky and 90 card board boxes each containing 12 bottles of “Bagpiper” Whisky were recovered. A sample nip out of each bottle of Bagpiper Gold was separated and sealed with his seal bearing impression ‘DR’ by the Investigating Officer. The case property was sealed. The samples as well as the sample seal also prepared separately at the spot were sent to the laboratory. Ruqa Ex.PB, was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded. Case was investigated. Ultimately, Challan against the petitioner and his co-accused was presented in the Court. They were charged under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act to which they denied and opted for trial. During trial the prosecution examined SI Dev Raj PW-1, Sukhchain Singh, Excise Inspector, and for oral witnesses tendered their affidavits. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. However, on appeal, Gurvinder Singh was acquitted. As usual the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no compliance to the provisions under Section 100 and 165 of Cr.P.C., has been made at the time of effecting the recovery because no independent witness was associated by the police party to attest the recovery memo. Story of the prosecution is improbable in as much as if the accused had been selling liquor, money must have been recovered from their possession. Having scrutinized the records of the case, it could well be observed that the case is based on the testimony of the two official CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 3 witnesses, one of them is an Excise Inspector. Both having no animus prejudice, enmity or motive against the petitioner for falsely implication them could not depose falsely. They could not be said to be interested witnesses. They have fully supported the prosecution case. They had duly identified the petitioner-Parvinder Singh at the spot as well as in the Court. No such glaring contradiction or inconsistency has been pointed out in the statements of these witnesses, so as to dub them unreliable and untrustworthy. No reason to falsely implicate has been assigned by the petitioner. As regards the non-joining of the independent witnesses at the spot the provisions of Section 100 and 165 of Code of Criminal procedure are not mandatory in nature but are merely directory. It is settled by now that official witnesses are as good as independent witnesses. If the testimony of official witnesses is found to be trustworthy, credible and reliable, then the joining of the independent witnesses is rendered insignificant. It may also be noticed that these days the requirement of joining the independent witnesses has become futile, due to their social affiliations, brotherhood and their personal gamete. They for various reasons resile from their previous statements as such they prove to be more dangerous to the prosecution then any other type of witnesses. Such a heavy quantity of liquor could not be expected to have been listed by the police. The petitioner has not alleged any animus against these two witnesses for involving them falsely in this case. The findings of fact returned by both the courts below cannot be interfered with on flimsy grounds or minor discrepancies. As regards the quantum of sentence, keeping in view the recovery of such heavy quantity of illicit liquor indicates that the petitioner had opened a parallel liquor shop which could spoil the social fabric as a whole. It CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 4 appears that sentence awarded by the courts below is already on the lower side. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 10TH March, 2009 SKaushik