Back
1993 Supreme(SC) 705
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN LAL
Versus
State of Punjab
Decided on : August 25, 1993
Non-compliance with Section 104 Criminal Procedure Code during a search is not illegal if the evidence of official witnesses is accepted and found to be trustworthy. The court may also consider the length of time since the occurrence to determine an appropriate sentence.
Headnote:
Section 16 (l) (a) - Punjab Excise Act - The appellant was found guilty under Section 16 (l) (a) read with Section 61 (1 (a) of the Punjab Excise Act for possession of spirit. The court found the appellant in exclusive possession of the house from which the recovery of spirit was effected. The court upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence of fine with default clause, but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found in possession of 90 litres of spirit and was convicted under Section 16 (l) (a) read with Section 61 (1 (a) of the Punjab Excise Act. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo one years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default of which to undergo six months RI.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was in exclusive possession of the house from which the recovery of spirit was effected. The court upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence of fine with default clause, but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months.
Issues: Compliance with Section 104 Criminal Procedure Code during the search, and the appropriate sentence for the offense committed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-compliance with Section 104 Criminal Procedure Code during the search is not illegal if the evidence of official witnesses is accepted and found to be trustworthy. The court also considered the length of time since the occurrence and reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to meet the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, subject to the modification of the sentence reducing the rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months.
Judgment
( 1 ). The appellant was found guilty under Section 16 (l) (a) read with Section 61 (1 (a) of the Punjab Excise Act. The prosecution case is that the appellant was a contractor and he was found in possession of 90 litres of spirit. The same was seized under a panchnama and a case was registered and a challan was filed. The accused denied the allegation. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo one years R1 and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default of which to undergo six months R1. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Sessions court. The revision was also dismissed by the High court. All the three courts have found that the appellant was in exclusive possession of the house from which the recovery of spirit was effected.
( 2 ). Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that during the search, the provisions of Section 104 Criminal Procedure Code are not complied with, namely, that the two respectable witnesses were not summoned. We do not think that this by itself is illegal once the court accepts the evidence of official witnesses and finds the same to be trustworthy. Therefore, we see no ground to interfere.
( 3 ). Now coming to the sentence, the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1979. We think that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of one years RI is reduced to six months R1. The sentence of fine with default clause is, however, confirmed. Subject to this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
