CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 676 OF 2002
Date of decision: 10.03.2009
Parvinder Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab .....Respondent
Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG,Punjab
A.N.JINDAL, J
All the three accused namely, Parvinder Singh alias Titoo,
Gurvinder Singh alias Nita and Raj Kumar, were convicted under
Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, vide judgment dated
23.04.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and
sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for keeping in the possession of 1320
bottles of contaminated liquor. However, in appeal preferred by
Gurvinder Singh and Parvinder Singh vide judgment dated 1.04.2002
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Gurvinder Singh was
acquitted. As such this is a petition by Parvinder Singh.
On 15.11.1994, SI Dev Raj, and other police officials were
present in the area of chowk Bhagtanwala, Amritsar, in connection
with Excise checking, whereon receipt of secret information, that the
petitioner alongwith Raj Kumar and Gurvinder Singh had stocked
Excise articles without any license or permit. Finding the information to
be reliable raided the disclosed place. On seeing the police party the
CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 2
Gurvinder Singh and Raj Kumar(non petitioners) succeeded in fleeing
away whereas Parvinder Singh petitioner was apprehended and on
search of the premises, 20 card board boxes each containing 20
bottles of “Bagpiper Gold” whisky and 90 card board boxes each
containing 12 bottles of “Bagpiper” Whisky were recovered. A sample
nip out of each bottle of Bagpiper Gold was separated and sealed
with his seal bearing impression ‘DR’ by the Investigating Officer. The
case property was sealed. The samples as well as the sample seal also
prepared separately at the spot were sent to the laboratory. Ruqa
Ex.PB, was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR
Ex.PB/1 was recorded. Case was investigated. Ultimately, Challan
against the petitioner and his co-accused was presented in the Court.
They were charged under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab
Excise Act to which they denied and opted for trial.
During trial the prosecution examined SI Dev Raj PW-1,
Sukhchain Singh, Excise Inspector, and for oral witnesses tendered
their affidavits.
In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied
all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case.
The trial ended in conviction. However, on appeal,
Gurvinder Singh was acquitted. As usual the learned counsel for the
petitioner has urged that no compliance to the provisions under
Section 100 and 165 of Cr.P.C., has been made at the time of
effecting the recovery because no independent witness was associated
by the police party to attest the recovery memo. Story of the
prosecution is improbable in as much as if the accused had been
selling liquor, money must have been recovered from their possession.
Having scrutinized the records of the case, it could well be
observed that the case is based on the testimony of the two official
CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 3
witnesses, one of them is an Excise Inspector. Both having no animus
prejudice, enmity or motive against the petitioner for falsely
implication them could not depose falsely. They could not be said to be
interested witnesses. They have fully supported the prosecution case.
They had duly identified the petitioner-Parvinder Singh at the spot as
well as in the Court. No such glaring contradiction or inconsistency
has been pointed out in the statements of these witnesses, so as to
dub them unreliable and untrustworthy. No reason to falsely implicate
has been assigned by the petitioner.
As regards the non-joining of the independent witnesses at
the spot the provisions of Section 100 and 165 of Code of Criminal
procedure are not mandatory in nature but are merely directory. It is
settled by now that official witnesses are as good as independent
witnesses. If the testimony of official witnesses is found to be
trustworthy, credible and reliable, then the joining of the independent
witnesses is rendered insignificant. It may also be noticed that these
days the requirement of joining the independent witnesses has become
futile, due to their social affiliations, brotherhood and their personal
gamete. They for various reasons resile from their previous
statements as such they prove to be more dangerous to the
prosecution then any other type of witnesses. Such a heavy quantity of
liquor could not be expected to have been listed by the police. The
petitioner has not alleged any animus against these two witnesses for
involving them falsely in this case.
The findings of fact returned by both the courts below
cannot be interfered with on flimsy grounds or minor discrepancies. As
regards the quantum of sentence, keeping in view the recovery of such
heavy quantity of illicit liquor indicates that the petitioner had opened
a parallel liquor shop which could spoil the social fabric as a whole. It
CRR NO. 676 OF 2002 4
appears that sentence awarded by the courts below is already on the
lower side.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the
same is dismissed.
[A.N.JINDAL]
JUDGE
10TH March, 2009
SKaushik