1998 Supreme(P&H) 962
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
Baj Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1247 of 1987.
Decided On : 31 July, 1998
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.S. Kamboj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Assistant A.G., Punjab.
The prosecution has a duty to preserve the case property properly and the failure to do so can prejudice the accused.
Headnote:
PUNJAB EXCISE ACT, 1914 - SECTION 61(1)(C) - ILLEGAL DISTILLATION OF LIQUOR - EVIDENCE - PRESERVATION OF CASE PROPERTY - NECESSITY - ABSENCE OF PUBLIC WITNESS - PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED - BENEFIT OF DOUBT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for illegally distilling liquor. He challenged the conviction on the grounds that no public witness was joined and the case property was not preserved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case property was not preserved properly and there was no public witness. It held that this caused prejudice to the petitioner and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the absence of public witness prejudiced the petitioner? 2. Whether the failure to preserve the case property properly prejudiced the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the absence of public witness is a factor that can be considered in determining whether the petitioner was prejudiced. 2. The court held that the failure to preserve the case property properly prejudiced the petitioner as it gave rise to the possibility of false implication.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner.
V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by Baj Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patti dated November 28, 1986 and that of the additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated September 25, 1987. The learned judicial Magistrate had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the court of Sessions as referred to above already.
2. The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on September 10, 1983, ASI Madan Lal alongwith other constables was going in the mand of river Beas. It was within the limits of village Karmuwala. The petitioner was seen distilling illicit liquor. On seeing the police party, he ran away. The working still was cooled and dismantled. There was 15000 Mili Litres of illicit liquor in the pitcher. A representative sample was taken. It was sealed. The rest of it was transferred in the tube. The tube, drum boiler and the other drum which contained 100 kilograms of Lahan was also lying nearby. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Rukka was sent to the police station. On basis of the same, formal First Information Report was recorded by ASI Harbans Singh. He prepared rough site plan. Excise Inspector Harjit Singh tested the contents and reported that it was a mixture of Gur, water and Kikar Barks. It was fully fermented lahan, fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After completing the other formalities and receiving even the report of the Chemical Analyst, report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.
3. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. On appraisal of the testimonies of the witnesses pertaining to the recovery, the learned trial court held that it has been established beyond all reasonable doubts that the petitioner was found running a working still and accordingly the abovesaid judgment and order of sentence were passed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the contention that a test identification parade was necessary. It was held that petitioner was already known and his name figures in the First Information Report. The other findings of the learned trial Court were approved and the appeal was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of the courts below urging that no public witness has been joined and in any case there was no attempt made to preserve the case property.
In this regard, the necessity of preserving the case property cannot be over- emphasised. It is the duty of the prosecution to preserve the case property till such time the appeal or revision is finally decided. If there is any such event which may prevent the preservation of the case property, the permission of the court should be taken to destroy the said property. One would hasten to add that if the case property is not produced, indeed, in final analysis it had to be seen if any prejudice is caused to the accused-petitioner or not.
5. ASI Sohan Lal appeared in the witness box and during the examination-in- chief, he supported the prosecution case. During cross-examination, he admitted that there was no Lahan in drums that were being produced, there was no seal on any drum, there was not even a chit on any of the drums, even on the pitchers, there was no seal or a chit, the seal on the tube was broken. The precise cross-examination in this regard reads :-
"It is correct that there is no lahan in the drums. It i