IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1613 of 2001
Date of Decision :- February 06, 2009
Karnail Singh ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
Present:- Sh. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. S.S.Gill, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
------
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
This is a revision against the judgment dated 11.7.2001 of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshar, affirming the judgment/order dated
12.6.2000 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshar, whereby
he convicted Karnail Singh son of Chanan Singh under Section 61(1)(a) of
the Punjab Excise Act. 1914 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for two
months.
The prosecution case is that on 26.10.1997 Charan Singh ASI
along with Rajinder Singh son of Bagicha Singh and HC Upkar Singh were
present in the area of chowk Village Begumpura for the purpose of
nakabandi. The police party saw a vehicle coming from Rahon to
2
Criminal Revision No. 1613 of 2001
Nawanshar. It was signaled to stop. It was a Maruti Van of white colour
bearing No.PB-32-1532. The driver disclosed his identity as Karnail Singh
son of Chanan Singh, resident of Village Barnala Kalan. The van was
searched. From the dicky of the van, two boxes, one containing 12 bottles
of Solan No.1 and the other containing 12 bottles of Director Special were
found. Other four boxes containing 48 bottles of Bag Piper English wine
were found. Another bag was found and the total number of whisky/wine
bottles were 84. Samples were taken and seal on the samples and the
whisky/wine bottles was put. Ruqa Ex.PW1/B was sent to the Police
Station. FIR Ex.PW1/D was recorded under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab
Excise Act, 1914. After completion of investigation, the prosecution
submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box,
ASI Charan Singh PW1, Upkar Singh HC PW2 and Balwant Singh Clerk
PW3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that the case of
the prosecution is suspect, as they did not examine an independent witness
and no reason has been given as to why an independent witness was not
brought into the witness box. There are contradictions in the statements of
ASI Charan Singh PW1 and HC Upkar Singh PW2, regarding joining of an
independent witness. ASI Charan Singh PW1 deposed, that Hari Singh
independent witness was joined from the excise staff, while HC UPkar
Singh PW2 has stated, that he was joined from the liquor vend. There are
discrepancies in the timings as to when this independent witness joined.
One witness i.e. ASI Charan Singh PW1 states that it was at 6.30, the other
i.e. HC Upkar Singh said that it was at 9.00 p.m. The verification of the
3
Criminal Revision No. 1613 of 2001
sample seals is defected. Affidavit Ex.P2 also does not clearly state as to
who took the sample to the Chemical Laboratory. Learned counsel further
states, that the petitioner had already completed the imposed sentence after
earning remissions from the Punjab Govt.
Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the testimony of
both ASI Charan Singh PW1 and HC Upkar Singh PW2 fully corroborate
each other. Ownership of the Maruti Van has been proved by Balwant
Singh PW3, Clerk of the DTO office. The link evidence is fully proved by
the affidavits of formal PWs Ex.P1 to P3. No worthwhile cross-
examination has been done to these witnesses. The Chemical Examiner
report Ex.P4 is also conclusive, that the samples, which were sent to the
Laboratory, were containing alcohol.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
impugned judgments and the record with their assistance.
No material discrepancy was found in the statements of ASI
Charan Singh PW1 and HC Upkar Singh PW2. The link evidence is
complete, as per the affidavits Exs.P1, P2 and P3. No worthwhile cross-
examination has been done to demolish the case of the prosecution. The
independent witness could not be produced, as he was won over by the
accused.
I do not find any infirmity in the judgments of the learned trial
Court and the appellate Court. Conviction of the petitioner is maintained.
Sentence of the petitioner is modified to that already undergone.
With the above modification in sentence, revision petition is
dismissed.
February 06, 2009 (MEHTAB S.GILL)
4
Criminal Revision No. 1613 of 2001
SKArora JUDGE