S.S.SUDHALKAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and awarded sentence of six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He filed an appeal against the said judgment. The appeal was dismissed and hence this revision petition.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he was distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. On the secret information, the place where he was carrying out this activity was raided and it was found that the petitioner had fixed still in his kitchen and at that time, he was changing water. There was an earthen chulha on which a pipe was fixed, which contained 50 kgs. of lahan. It was also found that there was a bottle half filled from which sample was taken. The lahan was tested and found fit for distillation of illicit liquor. Samples of illicit liquor and pipe containing lahan were also taken into possession. On chemical analysis, the report was found to be positive. The petitioner has contended in his revision petition that as admitted in the cross-examination of PW-4 Arjan Singh A.S.I. that they had met the Sarpanch of the village on the bus stand but did not join him as a witness. It is not necessary that all the persons meeting on the way have to be joined as witnesses. Moreover, it is not in all cases that independent witnesses can be joined. PW-1 has stated that they were trying to join the people of the village but they did not agree. In many cases, independent witnesses are not available. There cannot be any mathematical formula that independent witness has to be or has not to be joined in such raids. If the evidence of the official witnesses is otherwise reliable then the non-joining of the independent witnesses will not hamper the case of the prosecution. Both the Courts below have accepted the version of the official witnesses and even I have gone through the depositions of the witnesses. There appears to be no material contradiction which can go to show that the case of the prosecution is not true. This is not a case of a simple arrest of a person who is in possession of contraband articles. This is a case where place of manufacturing of illicit liquor was searched and the offence was found to be committed and the apparatus was also seized. Therefore, considering all the evidence, I do not find it proper to interfere with the finding of the Courts below who have held the petitioner guilty of the offence. Moreover, no question of leniency requires to be considered in such a case. This revision petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;