IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 402 of 2005 Date of decision: November 22, 2010 Lekh 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 3.6.2002 convicted the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and vide judgment dated 7.2.2005, his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Ferozepur. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 27.11.1996, HC Ranjit Singh along with other police officers had gone towards river bedding in connection with excise checking. When he was half a furlong short of the river bedding, he received a secret information against the petitioner in connection with installing of working still by him on the river bedding. Accordingly, a raid was conducted; the accused was apprehended while distilling the illicit liquor. During investigation, a drum boiler containing 100 kgs of lahan. Six bottles of illicit liquor were also recovered. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged under Section 61 (1) © of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Mohinder Singh Excise Inspector (PW1), HC Sukhdev Raj (PW2), HC Ranjit Singh (PW3), HC Shamsher Singh (PW4) and C. Jaswant Singh (PW5). Besides, the prosecution has proved documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 to MO7. The prosecution also proved the recovery of the working Criminal Revision No. 402 of 2005 -2- *** still. 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. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Both the courts below have duly appreciated the evidence of HC Sukhdev Raj (PW2) and HC Ranjit Singh (PW3). They are quite consistent in their statements qua the time, place and the manner in which the incident had taken place. 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