Crl. Revision No. 1690 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 1690 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.8.2011. Jhilmal Singh .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner along with Sunil Paswan had faced the trial under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 ('Act' for short) in FIR No. 69 dated 04.6.2007 registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. The trial court vide judgment dated 14.6.2010 convicted the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act. Vide order dated 15.6.2010, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of ` 5,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence were upheld by the appellate court, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, vide judgment dated 19.7.2011. Hence, the present petition by the accused. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 4.6.2007, the premises in question was raided on the basis of secret information. The petitioner and Sunil Paswan were found distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still in the bath room. The working still was dismantled. The components of the working still Crl. Revision No. 1690 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - were taken in police possession along with 40 Kilograms of Lahan. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Head Constable Kulwinder Singh as PW-1, who had taken the sample to the office of Chemical Examiner. ASI Jasbir Singh was examined as PW-2 who had kept the case property in tact and had sent the sample for chemical examination. ASI Dalbir Singh was examined as PW-3 and investigating officer ASI Sakattar Singh was examined as PW-4. Both the said witnesses deposed as per the prosecution story. The report of the chemical examiner was proved on record by PW-5, as per which he opined that the sample was of illicit liquor. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner was found distilling illicit liquor. There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as no independent witness had been joined at the time of recovery, prosecution case was liable to fail. The investigating officer has specifically deposed that he had tried to join independent witness but none had agreed to join. The official witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duty and had no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The case property was also duly produced during trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the courts below. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 02, 2011 Gurpreet