Criminal Revision No.2266 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2266 of 2003 Date of Decision 17.09.2010 Mohinder Singh and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 06.11.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 08.08.2002, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 61 (i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity 'the Act'). On 22.10.1996, ASI Om Parkash, Police Station City Bhiwani arrested the accused persons and on search they were alleged to have been found in possession of 16 bags; out of which 10 bags containing 150 pouches each of country-made liquor; two bags containing 28 bottles each of English Liquor make 'Bagpiper'; three bags containing 29 bottles each of English liquor make 'Jupiter No.1' and one bag containing 20 bottles of English liquor make 'Aristocrat'. Yet, the Investigating Officer had taken Criminal Revision No.2266 of 2003 2 out 10 pouches as sample of the country-made liquor and six bottles of English liquor and the same were sent to the Chemical Examiner and on receipt of the report, the accused were challaned. Since no sample was drawn from each bottle and each pouch, therefore, the charge was framed only qua possession of 10 pouches of country-made liquor and six bottles of English liquor, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Om Parkash (PW1), MHC Ranjit Singh (PW2), ASI Vijay Singh (PW3) and Constable Jogender Singh (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded their false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction and their appeal also failed. ASI Om Parkash (PW1) and ASI Vijay Singh (PW2) corroborated the prosecution story in all material aspects. It is in evidence that police party headed by ASI Om Parkash was present near Haluwas minor in connection with patrol duty. Meanwhile, a truck, driven by the accused Mohinder Singh came from the front side whereas the other accused namely Ashok, Jitender @ Kalu and Khem Chand @ Manoj were sitting in the trolley. Sixteen plastic bags were recovered from the trolly. On checking, 10 bags, contained 150 pouches each of country-made liquor, each pouch containing 200 mls of country-made liquor, two bags contained 28 bottles each of English liquor make 'Bagpiper; three bags contained 29 bottles each of English liquor make 'Jupiter No.1' and one bag contained 20 bottles of English liquor make 'Aristocrat'. From each bag one bottle was separated as sample and all the samples were sealed with the seal bearing Criminal Revision No.2266 of 2003 3 impression 'OP'. The liquor was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/A. The scooter and the tractor trolley were also seized. It is further in evidence of Om Parkash (PW1) that ruqa Ex.PW1/B was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW1/C was registered. Site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW1/D was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested. Case property was also deposited with Mohrir Head Constable. No such legal infirmity or perversity has been shown in the judgment, which may call for interference by this Court. No such defect in the conduct or procedure of the trial resulting into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice has been pointed out. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that the Investigating Officer of this case appears to be highly inefficient and incompetent in conducting the investigation. If he had recovered 10 bags, each bag containing 150 pouches; two bags, containing 28 bottles each of English liquor make 'Bagpiper'; three bags, containing 29 bottles each of English liquor make 'Jupiter No.1' and one bag, containing 20 bottles of English liquor make 'Aristocrat' then he was bound to separate the samples from every pouch as well as every bottle so as to prove that the contents of every pouch and every bottle were illicit liquor but his negligence in doing so, proves his inefficiency in conducting the investigation for which it needs a serious action or a departmental inquiry. However, I leave to the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned as to how he proceeds. The argument with regard to conscious possession, all the three accused were in the vehicle in which the articles were also lying. Thus, they must be in conscious possession of the same. However, he has failed to Criminal Revision No.2266 of 2003 4 explain as to for what reason they were present in the trolly (vehicle), therefore, conscious possession stands established. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought indulgence of this Court on the quantum of sentence. Having pondered over his argument, keeping in view the longivity of the trial, as the occurrence in this case has taken place on 22.10.1996 and he has been facing the proceedings since then and the fact that they have already undergone some period of the substantive sentence, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 3 ½ months each without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Director General of Police, Haryana, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.09.2010 mamta-II