Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 430 OF 1998. DATE OF DECISION : 3 -11-2009. Gurjant Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.03.1998 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.1995 rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha vide, which it convicted the present revision-petitioner for offence under Section 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -2- pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.1994 police party headed by Nirmal Singh, ASI was on patrol duty in a Govt. canter in the area of village Dada Kaoni and when they reached on Bus Stand of village Chhateana, Ravinder Singh Romana, Excise Inspector joined the police party. They were heading towards village Dada Kaoni and when they reached near the bridge on drain of village Dada Kaoni, a secret information was received that Gurjit Singh – revision-petitioner was distilling illicit liquor and if raid is conducted he would be caught red-handed. On the basis of secret information, Ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PD/1 was recorded. An independent witness Naib Singh son of Jarnail Singh was also joined in the police party and raid was conducted on the house of the revision-petitioner and he was found distilling illicit liquor. The working still was dismantled and let to cool down. The drum containing 100 litres of lahan was got tested from Ravinder Singh Romana, Excise Inspector and thereafter it was sealed. The receiver cane was having illicit liquor out of which 180 ML was taken as sample and remaining was measuring four bottles, which was again put in the same cane. The components and the working still and the remaing case property was taken into possession vide, recovery Memo Ex.PB. The revision-petitioner was arrested. Sample was sent to Chemical Examiner and vide, report Ex.PE the same was found to be of liquor. After completion of the investigation, the revision-petitioner Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -3- was sent up to face trial under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined Ravinder Singh Romana, Excise Inspector as PW1, ASI Nirmal Singh as PW2, and also tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PF and formal Exhibits PG and PH. 4. In the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C the accused denied the version of prosecution witnesses and took the plea that he was falsely implicated in this case and further stated that he was taken from his house in the presence of Major Singh son of Swan Singh, and Sandhura Singh, Member Panchayat. He also examined Naib Singh as DW1 and Sandhura Singh as DW2, in his defence. 5. Learned Trial Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and convicted the present revision-petitioner Gurjant Singh for offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of sentence of learned Judicial Magistrat, the revision-petitioner filed an appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mukatsar, who dismissed the same and hence, present revision petition. 6. I have heard Mr. P.S.Brar, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record carefully. 7. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -4- evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of PW1 Ravinder Singh, Excise Inspector, PW2 Nirmal Singh, ASI and report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PF, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The courts below are also right in coming to the conclusion that the defence version given by the accused did not inspire confidence. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that independent witness joined in the raiding party, did not support the prosecution version and that rather he appeared as defence witness and supported the version of the accused and hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of official witnesses alone. 9. However, there is no force in the said plea. This plea has been duly considered by both the courts below. There is no rule of law that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be relied upon in the absence of corroboration of independent witness. Deposition of Nirmal Singh, ASI in the present case is duly corroborated by Ravinder Singh Romana, Excise Inspector. They were acting in the discharge of their official duties. Their deposition is consistent on all the material points. Hence, there is nothing as to why they should have deposed falsely against the revision-petitioner. Merely because, independent witness was won over by the accused and he appeared as witness of the Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -5- accused, it cannot be said that no reliance can be placed upon the deposition of official witnesses, who are having no axe to grind against the accused. 10. It is settled law that in case of deposition of official witnesses, the court is put on guard to scrutinize the same, carefully and cautiously and after careful scrutiny if it comes to the conclusion that the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity, the same can be believed. In Akmal Ahmed v. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 265, it was held that it is now well settled that the evidence of search or seizure made by the police, will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 56, it was observed as under:- “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature.” 11. The only other point which survives for consideration is as to whether the petitioner should be granted benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision- Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -6- petitioner that he is facing trial for the last about 15 years as the occurrence allegedly took placed on 09.05.1994 and that he had already undergone about two and half months of the imprisonment and that amount of fine has also been paid by the revision-petitioner. It was further contended that the accused was not a previous convict and that he was only 35 years of age at the time of alleged offence. Hence, it is contended that he should be granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 13. Law has been settled by Full Bench of our High Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 82 PLR 585, wherein it was observed that prescription of minimum sentence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act, would not operate as a bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. or provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 14. In the present case, the recovery was effected on 09.05.1994 and the revision-petitioner has already undergone two and half months of imprisonment, hence, after a lapse of 15 years, it would not be proper to send the revision-petitioner in jail. Moreover, only 4 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from his possession. Hence, in my view he deserves the benefit of probation. 15. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgment of this Court rendered in Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 51, wherein 5 bottles of illicit liquor was recovered and the accused was caught red-handed while distilling illicit liquor. However, while placing reliance upon Joginder Singh's case (supra), the petitioner was given benefit under Crl. Revision No.430 of 1998 -7- the Probation of Offenders Act. 16. Hence, while maintaining the conviction under section 16 (1)(c) of the Act, the order of sentence passed by the courts below is modified and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the said period. In case, he violates any terms of the bond, he shall appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mukatsar to receive the sentence. 17. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mukatsar, who shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude. If the petitioner does not execute the bail bond and surety bond as ordered above, the present revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 18. Revision-petitioner has already deposited the amount of fine and same should be treated as the cost of proceedings. The present revision petition stands disposed of, accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 3, 2009. JUDGE 'om'