CRR NO. 738 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 738 OF 2002 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Sukhminder Singh ……Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab …..Respondent Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG,Punjab A.N.JINDAL, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, under Section 61(i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act(herein referred as this 'Act') for keeping 240 bottles of English Whisky in his illegal possession. Brief resume of facts is that on 18.01.1997 police party headed by SI Angrej Singh was present in the area of Muthandu Gate, G.T. Road, Phillaur in connection with the special checking of vehicles, in the meantime, one white coloured maruti car without registration number driven by the petitioner came from Ludhiana side. SI Angrej Singh signalled the said car to stop. The petitioner tried to slip away but was apprehended. On search of the car three bags containing 80 bottles each of English Whisky bearing label of “Diplomat Brand” were recovered. 240 sample nips each measuring to 180 ml. from each bottle were taken as sample. All the bottles and CRR NO. 738 OF 2002 2 sample nips were duly sealed by the Investigating Officer with seal having impression “A.S.”. Consequently, on the basis of the ruqa sent by Investigating Officer Ex.PW3/A, FIR Ex.PW3/B was registered under Section 61(i)(a) of the Act. The site plan Ex.PW3/C was prepared. The above said 240 bottles and 240 sample nips were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA. The above said car was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. Thereafter, the recovered samples were sent to the Laboratory. On completion of the Investigation, the petitioner was challaned. The petitioner was charged under Section 61(i)(a) of the Act to which they denied the charge and claimed trial. During trial the prosecution examined Constable Kulwinder Singh as PW-1, ASI Sukhvir Singh as PW-2 and Investigating Officer Angrej Singh(PW-3) and proved affidavits of the formal witnesses on record. In his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. As regards the first argument regarding the non-joining of the independent witnesses, the recovery was effected when the police party was present at Muthandu, G.T.Road, Phillaur, in connection with the special checking of the vehicles. Therefore, under these circumstances, in this case of chance recovery, non-joining of the public witnesses does not vitiate the trial. Even in cases of secret information, the non-joining of the public witnesses is not fatal. Only the quality of evidence which is weighed and not the quantity. It is also noticed these days, no trust could be laid in the public witnesses as due to their social affiliations and other material gains, they immediately shift to the other side. Even otherwise they gain nothing but enmity of the accused by appearing against him. However, the CRR NO. 738 OF 2002 3 witnesses so examined by the prosecution have with stood the test of cross-examination. Therefore, they having no bias or prejudice against the petitioner be dis-believed. Both the Courts have consistently observed that the recovery was effected from the petitioner. It is also established on the record that the petitioner was driving the said car from where 240 bottles of English Whisky was recovered. No plausible defence has been set up by him so as to believe the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded for leniency in the quantum of sentence, the petitioner has already undergone about one month of sentence. Keeping in view the pendency of the proceedings against him, since long sentence of the petitioner deserves to be modified. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in sentence by reducing the same to six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for compliance. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 16th February, 2009 SKaushik