S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) PRITAM Singh Petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act on the charge of distilling illicit liquor by working a still and was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phul on 24.4.1978. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda after appraising the evidence, upheld the the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 13.1.1977 on receipt of secret information, Raghbir Singh, A.S.I. accompanied by Santokh Singh, Excise Inspector and Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh, non official witnesses, raided the house of the petitioner in village Gill Kalan. He was caught red handed while working a still. The still was dismantled and its various components were taken into possession. The contents of the boiler lying on the heater were examined at the spot and the same were found to be fit for further distillation vide Excise inspector's report Ex. PA The recovery me no was made in that respect. The bottle containing liquor was sent for chemical examination and vide report Ex. PE, the Chemical Examiner found the same to be illicit liquor. After necessary investigation, the accused was challaned. The Magistrate after hearing the parties' counsel and perusing the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above. On appeal, the conviction was upheld by the appellate Court. Pritam Singh has now come up by way of revision. This revision is liable to be accepted on the short ground. A.S.I. Raghbir Singh sealed the sample bottle containing illicit liquor with the seal of Santokh Singh, Excise Inspector and thereafter handed over the same to the latter. The investigating officer did not tell in the court that he entrusted the seal of the Excise Inspector to Mohinder Singh, an independent witness who was jointed in the raid. The Excise Inspector kept the same with him till the sample had been despatched to the Chemical Examiner. Since there is no evidence about the seal of the Excise Inspector having been handed over to a disinterested witness, it is not possible for me to say that the sample alleged to have been sent to the Chemical Examiner was of the same material which was alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of both the official witnesses examined in this case does not inspire confidence more especially when there are circumstances brought on the record to show that there was likelihood of tampering with the recovered substance. Mohinder Singh P.W. has also refused to support the prosecution case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution case is not altogether free from doubt, the benefit of which must go to the petitioner. In the result I accept this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below and acquit him of the charge under section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act. The fine paid, if any shall be refunded to him.;