The absence of crucial evidence and lack of proper maintenance of case property can raise doubts and entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by Hukam Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and order of sentence pronounced by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, dated 2.12.1987 and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 5.5.1988. The learned trial Court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal preferred by the petitioner as mentioned above failed.

2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case were that on 23.6.1984 Assistant Sub Inspector Pritam Singh was posted at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. On the said date, he along with Head Constable Sadhu Singh and two other Constables was present between the Juggian Hukam Singh and Gulab Singh. A secret information was received that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor on the bank of river Satluj within the are of village Rajapur. Assistant Sub Inspector Pritam Singh alongwith Head Constable Sadhu Singh and above said two Constables went to the place. The petitioner was caught red- handed while distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. At that time, the petitioner was feeding fire in the hearth of the working still. The police party dismantled the still and sealed the drum of lahan used as boiler. There were three other drums containing 200 kgs. of lahan. They were sealed with the seal of PS. Before that, a representative sample was taken and sealed. The entire case property was deposited in the Malkhana. One drum contained about 150 kgs. partially distilled lahan while the three other drums, as mentioned above, contained 200 kgs. of lahan. The representative sample was sent for the report of the Chemical Analyst. On receipt of the same, the necessary report under the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.

3. The learned trial Court had recorded the evidence and concluded that in the facts of the case it was not necessary that public witness should have been joined. The prosecution version was believed and it was held that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner was running a working still illegally. Accordingly, he was held guilty of the above said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a month.

4. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, accepted the version of the prosecution that had the public witness been joined it may have been too late to apprehend the petitioner red-handed. It was held that the prosecution version was consistent. As regards the absence of the lahan in the drum, it was held that it was corroborating piece of evidence. Direct evidence was available in the statement of the witnesses.

5. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been preferred.

6. It is true that joining of the public witness has only been insisted by the courts to lend credibility to the version of the prosecution. Each case necessarily has to be examined by the Court on its own merit. If plausible explanation is available for non-availability of the public witness, the Court will not insist for joining of the public witness. In the present case, it transpired in evidence that public witness immediately was not available and, therefore, had they waited, the petitioner could not have been caught red- handed. Keeping in view the said fact and in the peculiar facts of the case, it will not be appropriate to insist that when public witnesses were not joined, the prosecution case must fail.

7. However, there is an important fact that when the two drum boilers were produced in the Court and Assistant Sub Inspec