S.D. Dewan, J. - (1.) MUKHTIAR Singh petitioner was convicted under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act for distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still at Chhanna Sher Singh in the area of village Talwandi Chaudhrian and was sentenced to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for one year by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sultanpur Lodhi, on 27th February, 1978. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to one year maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause. He has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) THE case of prosecution is that on 13th July, 1976, Jaswant Singh, Head Constable along with Dev Raj, Excise Inspector and other police officials was present for excise checking at the Bus Stand, Talwandi Chaudhrian when the Head Constable received secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still in the area of village Talwandi Chaudhrian. The Head Constable sent ruqa Ex. P.C. to the Police Station for the registration of the case. Kabal Singh was cooped as a witness and the raiding party proceeded to the spot. The petitioner was found working a still. The working still was dismantled. Drum Ex. P1. which was being used as a boiler, contained 125 Kgs. of lahan. A sample was taken out of the same The contents of the drum, Ex. P1. were tested by the Excise Inspector at the spot and vide his report Ex. P.B. he found the same to be lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor. After completing all the formalities, the case property was taken into possession. After necessary investigation, the petitioner was challaned, convicted and sentenced as above. To establish its case, the prosecution mainly, relied on the evidence of Kabal Singh (P.W. 1) Dev Raj Excise Inspector (P.W. 2) and Jaswant Singh, Head Constable (P.W. 3). On behalf of the petitioner, it has been vehemently urged that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of so called independent witness Kabal Singh and also that of the official witnesses. There seems to be considerable merit in this argument. On a perusal of the judgment Ex D. 1. I find that Kabal Singh had appeared in excise case against Anokh Singh and the Sessions Judge Kapurthala had observed in Ex. D. 1 that Kabal Singh who was a witness in that case could not be relied on as he was more interested in the success of the prosecution case than the official witnesses. He was also held to be stock witness of the police. It is also not disputed that during the days of this occurrence Kabal Singh was a liquor contractor. In view of the above it appears the Kabal Singh was under the influence of the police and it would not be safe to accept his testimony. It is a matter of common experience that liquor vend contractors are over -zealous in the detection of boot -legging as that affects their trade. In view of this, blemish also attaches to the testimony of Kabal Singh. It has been admitted by the Head Constable that at the Bus Stand Talwandi Chaudhrian where the received secret information against the petitioner, some persons were present there. No disinterested person was joined in the raiding party. As independent evidence was available which has been withheld, it would cast doubt even on the testimony of the official witnesses.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, I accept this revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.;