The main legal point established in the judgment is the conviction of the accused under the Punjab Excise Act based on the raid conducted by police officials, as well as the court's discretion to order the accused's release on probation of good conduct considering his personal circumstances.

M.L. Singhal, J. - The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.2.84, at about 4.20 PM, HC Bahadur Singh of PS Shahkot alongwith HC Ranjit Singh etc. happened to be present at Kanwan Pattan Bridge in connection with routine patrol where be received secret information which he felt to be reliable, that Banta Singh accused was distilling illicit liquor by means of working still in the mand of river Satluj in the area of village Chak Bhamnia and if a timely raid was conducted at him, he could be apprehended. On the receipt of this information, HC Bahadur Singh drafted ruqa Ex.PC on the basis of which FIR Ex.PC/ was registered at PS Shahkot. Thereafter, raid was conducted in the mand of river Satluj in the area of village Chak Bhamnia. Accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. At the time of raid, he was found feeding fire in the hearth of the still. Still was dismantled. Its components were cooled. On the hearth of the still one drum containing 100 kgs. of lahan was lying which was being used as boiler. Liquor was trickling and falling in the receiving tin after distillation. Out of the recovered liquor, nip was taken out as sample. Remaining illicit liquor measured 3 bottles. Besides, 4 drums containing 150 Kgs. each of lahan were lying near the still. Drum boiler and these drums containing lahan were sealed. Similarly, the sample nip was sealed. Components of the working still namely, drum boiler etc. were taken into possession. Rough site plan was prepared at the spot with correct marginal notes. On return to the police station the case property was deposited with MHC of the police station. Excise Inspector tested the contents of drum boiler at PS Shahkot. He tested the contents of drums. From their taste, colour and smell, he found the drum boiler to be containing lahan partially distilled. From their taste, colour and smell, he found the other drums to be containing fully fermented lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After investigation, accused was challaned.

2. Accused was charged under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. At the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nakodar found the charge under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for 2 months vide order dated 19.3.1987. Petitioner went in appeal. Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.1.1988.

3. Still not satisfied, Banta Singh has come up in revision to this Court.

4. Accused was convicted on the testimony of HC Bahadur Singh and that of HC Ranjit Singh. They are police officials. Police officials are usually interested in the success of the case detected by them. HC Bahadur Singh etc. had received secret information that the accused was distilling illicit liquor in the mand of river Satluj and that if timely raid was conducted at him, he could be apprehended. Normally, when a police official proceeds on raid acting on receipt of secret information, he should join some independent witness so that some credence is assured to the factum of raid. In this case, the joining of independent witness could not be insisted upon because they received secret information at a point where no independent witness was available. From the point where secret information was received till they reached the place of recovery, no independent witness was available. If they had whiled away time in procuring independent witness from the vicinity of village Chak Bhamnia, the purpose of raid could have been frustrated. There is no discrepancy in the statement of HC Bahadur Singh etc. which could be taken note of as impinging upon the truth of the prosecution case. So far as minor discrepancies are concerned, they occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses because the observations gathered by ea