Criminal Revision No.610 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Melo PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL Present:- Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Gill, Additional A.G. Punjab. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is a revision filed by Melo against the judgment/order dated 14.10.2000 of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri whereby he convicted Melo under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab excise Act, 1914 and sentenced her to undergo RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, or in default, to further undergo RI for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 29.3.2001. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.6.1999 HC Mehma Singh along with other police officials was going for patrol duty in Jeep No.PB- Criminal Revision No.610 of 2001 -2- 13B-1578 in the area of Village Ranchana. Petitioner Melo was apprehended with a plastic can. She was found in possession of country made liquor. 180 ml. of country made liquor was taken out as sample and the remaining liquor turned out to be 11, ¾ bottles. After measuring the liquor, it was put back into the plastic can. Seal of “MS” was put on the sample taken. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.1. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box HC Mehma Singh PW-1, Jhirmal Singh PW-2 and MHC Nirmal Singh PW-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no independent witness was joined, though recovery has been made during day time, nor any effort was made by the Investigating Officer to join a independent witness. Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead defence evidence, which has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Recovery is of country made liquor (Sharab Desi Theka). He has further argued that it was not illicit liquor, but liquor which can be bought from an authorised vend. He has further argued that there are glaring discrepancies in the statements of the official witnesses. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond doubt. Not only the Investigating Officer HC Mehma Singh PW-1, but the excise officials also have deposed against the accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that proper opportunity to the petitioner was not given to lead her defence evidence. This has prejudiced her case. Even going through the merits of the case, it comes out that there are glaring discrepancies in the statements of the official witnesses. Investigating Officer HC Mehma Singh PW-1 did not make any effort to join an Criminal Revision No.610 of 2001 -3- independent witness, though the recovery has been made during day time. With the above discussion, the revision petition of the petitioner is allowed. Orders dated 14.10.2000 and 29.3.2001 of the learned trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court respectively are set aside and petitioner is acquitted of all the charges. If in custody, she be set free forthwith, if not needed in any other case. (MEHTAB S.GILL) February 4, 2009 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO