Crl. Revision No. 669 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 669 of 2007 Date of Decision : 19.04.2007 Jaswant Rai …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Magistrate (vide judgment dated 4.3.2006) for an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act on a finding that he, in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by him, led to the recovery of 180 bottles of country made liquor. The recovery was got effected by the petitioner from out of the overhead water tank of his house. The solitary plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned finding of conviction is that the only independent witness had not supported the prosecution plea. Reliance, in support of the plea, was placed upon 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 770 (Gurdip Singh versus State of Punjab). The advocated view does not at all merit acceptance. In the present case, the raiding party was available at the Bus Stand Jhunir, when it Crl. Revision No. 669 of 2007 2 received a secret information against the accused. In a fairly natural manner, it associated Ram Chand, who runs a STD/PCO at Bus Stand itself, in the party. That he did not support the prosecution evidence at the trial in the another story. The investigating agency is not guilty of having refrained from associating an independent witness in the party. Interestingly enough, that independent witness conceded his signatures on the relevant memos etc. and tried to put forth the plea that his signatures were obtained on blank papers when he went to CIA staff, Mansa on 1.4.2002 to enquire about the petitioner. Ram Chand, PW, is not an illiterate person. He is a graduate. He testified at the trial that he would put his signatures on a paper only after it had been reduced into writing. He does not explain why, in that case, he opted to put his signatures on a blank paper. He did not move any application before the Panchayat or the higher police authorities against his signatures having been obtained on blank papers. It is, thus, obvious that he had been won over by the petitioner. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 770 is inapplicable because an independent witness had indeed been joined in the present case. The above discussion would indicate that the recovery effected at the instance of the petitioner was very large and this, by itself, negates the possibility of a frame-up. An independent witness, a graduate, had indeed been associated in the raiding party and, for adequate reasons, it has been held that he had been won over by the petitioner. The presentation, in its totality, was found by the learned Trial Magistrate and also the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be relatable to the material obtaining on the file. Adequate reasoning in the context was Crl. Revision No. 669 of 2007 3 recorded. I find absolutely no legal infirmity or invalidity for the appreciation of evidence by the Courts aforementioned. The petition is without any force and is ordered to be dismissed. April 19, 2007 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge