IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1940 of 2005 Date of decision: December 03, 2010 Balram and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Balram and Rajinder Singh accused- petitioners (herein referred as, 'the petitioners') were slapped with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, by the trial court vide its judgment dated 25/27.8.2003, for keeping in their possession 70 cartons of illicit liquor, each carton containing 12 bottles. The appeal preferred by them was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.9.2005. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.6.1997, at about 10.00 p.m. ASI Jagdish Lal along with other police officials was present in the area of village Sadopur where he received a secret information to the effect that the petitioner Rajinder Singh was transporting liquor un- authorisedly in his truck bearing registration No.HR-010GA-1149 and was coming from the side of Chandigarh, if checking was carried out, he could be caught red handed with the large quantity of liquor. Believing the information to be reliable, a picket was laid. In the meantime, the accused along with the truck bearing the aforesaid number came and was stopped. The driver of the truck fled away whose name was known as Rajinder Singh, whereas, the other occupant of the truck was apprehended who disclosed his name as Balram. On checking of the truck, the following liquor was recovered :- 1. 36 cartons of liquor make Everready. 2. 20 cartons of liquor make Bagpiper, 3. 14 cartons of liquor make Aristocrat Criminal Revision No. 1940 of 2005 -2- Sample of one bottle of each category was taken out and sealed with the seal bearing impression “JL” and the remaining liquor was also sealed and the seal after use was handed over to UGC Baljit Singh. On completion of the investigation the accused were challaned for keeping 70 cartons i.e. 840 bottles of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. The accused were charged under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act'), to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined HC Rai Singh (PW1), HC Baljeet Singh (PW2), HC Varender Singh (PW3), Inspector Arun Kumar (PW4) and ASI Jagdish Lal (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. Arguments heard. Record perused. As usual, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no independent witness has been joined and the case is based on the testimonies of the official witnesses. In this regard, it is observed that there is no hard and fast rule that the conviction of the accused cannot be based on the testimonies of the official witnesses alone. The joining of the independent witnesses is not mandatory but a principle of prudence in order to make the recovery more authentic, but in case the prosecution has placed reliance on the testimonies of the official witnesses alone, the only role is that the court should come on guard of the accused and examined testimonies of the official witnesses more closely so as to rule out any false implication. In the instant case, the testimonies of HC Baljeet Singh (PW2) and ASI Jagdish Lal (PW5) are quite consistent with regard to the factum of recovery of the large quantity of the illicit liquor. Both the witnesses have withstood the test of cross examination. They had no enmity to depose against the accused or to falsely implicate them for such a heavy recovery. It would be significant to mention here that such a heavy recovery cannot be fastened by the officers of such status from their own sources. As such, it would not be in-appropriate to disbelieve them merely Criminal Revision No. 1940 of 2005 -3- because of their status as such. Some efforts have been made to challenge the identity of Rajender Singh accused but having heard at length, I do not find myself in agreement with his argument. The name of Rajender Singh came at the very moment he succeeded in fleeing away. The official witnesses had every occasion and opportunity to see him and they have duly identified him in the court. As regard the argument that the samples were not taken from each and every bottle and only three samples were drawn, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the entire liquor. In this regard, it may be observed that heavy quantity of the liquor was recovered from the accused. The same was duly produced in the court at the time of trial. The accused also could not show any permit or licence. Be that it may, the liquor except the three cartons were not proved to be illicit, yet, the accused having been found in possession of liquor without any licence or permit certainly have committed an offence. The Government has carved out the rules and issues the licences for keeping in possession the liquor and for opening the shops and none of such rules provides for keeping such a heavy quantity of liquor without any permit or licence. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought this court to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. In this regard it may be observed that the accused were found transporting 840 bottles of liquor containing in 70 cartons. The accused also failed to produce any licence or permit, it appears that he had no respect or regard for the policy of the Government regarding possession of such heavy quantity of the liquor, therefore, to extend leniency would extend wrong signal to the society and such type of criminals would feel encouraged. The sentence as already awarded to the petitioners appears to be on the lower side. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. December 03, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge