Reliability of evidence and consideration of leniency in sentencing based on prolonged trial.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

1. Avtar Singh was tried for an offence under Section 61(1)(C) of the Punjab Excise Act and was held guilty. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, vide his judgment dated 11.6.1985. He preferred an appeal against the judgment recording his conviction, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, on 22.8.1986, hence the present revision petition.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 19.11.1981 Head Constable Kaptan Singh received secret information in Police Station, Shahabad, that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by working a still in the Dera of Manjit Singh. On receipt of this information a raiding party was formed after joining Raj Kumar, Excise Inspector. The party raided the Dera of Manjit Singh where the petitioner was captured red handed while distilling illicit liquor by working a still. A drum containing about 160 kilograms of lahan was being used as a boiler and the illicit liquor was pouring in a can. The still was cooled and dismantled. The contents of the drum were tested and a sample was separated from the liquor lying in the can. All the articles of still were seized vide a recovery memo which was attested by the witnesses. The sample was sent for chemical examination and the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Haryana, Chandigarh, reported that the contents of the sample constituted illicit liquor. Charge-sheet was then presented against the petitioner.

3. In order to prove the charge against the petitioner the prosecution examined Pritam Singh, excise peon PW 1, Kaptan Singh Head Constable PW 2 and Raj Kumar Excise Inspector PW 3. All of them supported the prosecution version. Affidavits of formal witnesses were also tendered in evidence. The contention of the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he was falsely implicated in the case and he was never captured red- handed while distilling illicit liquor, but he did not produce any evidence in defence.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that although secret information had been received by the investigating officer in the police station and thereafter he organised a raiding party, but still no independent witness was joined and the conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained on the testimony of official witnesses alone, which did not find corroboration from any independent quarter. It was further contended that the statements of the witnesses were also discrepant with respect to the joining of the witnesses, the period of their stay at the spot and how the case property was brought to the police station. So, it could not be said that the evidence on record was free from inconsistencies and was quite reliable. I find no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel. The evidence of the prosecution was duly examined by the Courts below and they came to the conclusion that the statements of the witnesses were quite reliable and they had absolutely no animus to involve the petitioner in a false case. The discrepancies referred to by the learned counsel were minor in nature and the same occurred due to lapse of time. The recovery was effected in November, 1981 while the witnesses were examined after about a period of 2-1/2 years and they were likely to forget some minor details of the case. Conviction of the petitioner can well be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record.

6. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that speedy trial was the essence of justice and in this case the petitioner had faced this litigation for the last about 13 years, so it was a fit case where the petitioner may be dealt with leniently and may not be sent to jail to undergo the remaining sentence. The petitioner had already undergone a part of the sentence awarded to him. I