1991 Supreme(P&H) 1059
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Rathor and S.D.Bajaj JJ.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Gurdial Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 484-DBA of 1987,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 13, 1991
Non-production of the case property during the trial is a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case.
Headnote:
PUNJAB EXCISE ACT, 1914 - SECTION 61 (1) (C) - NON-PRODUCTION OF CASE PROPERTY - ACQUITTAL - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for distilling illicit liquor. The trial court acquitted the accused due to the non-production of the case property during the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's order of acquittal, holding that the non-production of the case property was a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case.
Issues: Whether the non-production of the case property during the trial was a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the non-production of the case property during the trial was a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case, as it deprived the accused of the opportunity to examine the evidence against him and to challenge the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the trial court's order of acquittal.
S.S.Rathor, J.
1. On 28-1-1984, ASI Kartar Singh (PW-3) along with his subordinate Police officials was roaming about in the area on patrol duty. When the Police party reached near the cremation ground which was at some distance from Basti Labh Singh, smoke was seen coming out from some places. On suspicion, the Police party reached at the place from where smoke was emanating and found the accused distilling illicit liquor through a still. He was apprehended and all the components and still apparatus were taken into possession vide recovery Memo. Ext. PA attested by the Police officials and signed by the accused. Ruqa Ex. PB was sent through Constable Om Parkash by ASI Kartar Singh (PW) and formal FIR Ex. PB/1 was recorded. Rough Site planExt. PC was prepared. The case property was stated to have been deposited with the MHC in due course. The contents of lahan were tested by the Excise Inspector on 29-1-1984 and he found the same to be fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After completion of the challan, the accused was put to trial. On appearance in the Court, charge under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate the charge framed against the accused, during trial examined PW-1 Ram Rattan Constable, PW2 Shri J.C. Sharla, Excise Inspector and PW-3 ASI Kartar Singh. In addition to this, report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PD/1 and affidavits Exts. PE & PF of the formal witnesses were tendered and the prosecution evidence was closed.
2. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he emphatically denied the prosecution version and claimed false implication.
3. During the trial, admittedly, the entire case property a longwith the components of the working still alleged to have been recovered from the accused when the accused was working the still, have not been produced during the trial. The trial Court took serious note of this fact as a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case and as such, passed the Order of acquittal and in doing so the trial Court placed reliance on two judgments of this Court reported as Shabeg Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 1 and Suba Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 250. Feeling dissatisfied with the acquittal order passed by the trial Court in favour of the accused respondent, the State has come up in appeal which is being disposed of vide this judgment.
4. The only argument raised by Mr. S.S. Kang, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab is that, non-production of the case property should not have been the sole basis of acquittal and in support of this contention, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Balraj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 CLR 318.
5. We have given deep thought to the contention raised by Mr. Kang. The aforesaid two Single Bench judgments have been rendered by brother A.S. Bains, J. (as be then was) in the latter judgment i.e. Suba Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), the Division Bench judgment in Balraj Singhs case (supra) was also considered and brother A.S. Bains, J. recorded the reasons in Para 5 of the judgment. Under these circumstances, the trial Court committed no error of law in passing the order of acquittal applying the judgment of Suba Singhs case (supra) to the facts of the present case. We would like to make it clear that non production of the case property during the trial cannot be excused as of rule of course, production of case property in the court is a corroborative piece of evidence. But the evidenciary value of such piece of evidence would depend upon the facts of each case. In every case, a trial Court is not free to dispense with the production of the case property. Before doing the so, trial Court is expected to weigh in mind the importance of the case property and the amount of prejudice the accused is likely to suffer, for its n