Dua, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, dated the 28th of January 1963, affirming the conviction of the petitioner under section 61(l)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from nine months to six months. The learned Magistrate trying the petitioner had, it may be stated, sentenced him to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of which he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months. The sentence of payment of fine and imprisonment in default was, however, maintained by the Court of appeal.
(2.) THE case against the petitioner is that on the 12th of January 1962 at Kahnpur he was found working a still distilling illicit liquor, the component parts of which were inter alia a valtoha containing 30 seers of lahan, a brass dohni containing 104 ozs. of illicit liquor a. bamboo pipe, some bricks and a bucket containing 130 ozs. of illicit liquor. On the day mentioned above Sub -Inspector Banarsi Das, who had received secret information formed a raiding party consisting of Tarlok Singh, Teja Singh, Swarn Singh and Bhagat Singh in addition to some officials. They raided the house of the accused at about 3 in the morning when the accused was seen distilling illicit liquor in the courtyard of his house and was actually feeding the fire under the still. He was secured at the spot and when he tried to resist his arrest he sustained some injuries on his person. In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied the prosecution version and stated that as a matter of fact he had been summoned from his well and falsely implicated in the case. He also denied the place of recovery to be in his possession. In support of the defence three witnesses were examined by the accused. D. W. 1 is Sadhu Singh, according to whose statement when the police arrived in the village accused Pritam Singh was working at the witness's well and was called from there. The following day the witness came to know that he (the petitioner) had been involved in the case. He has, however, admitted that the police actually arrived at the village at about 2 -30 early in the morning. The witness was not called by the police. D. W. 2 Kashmiri Lal, Head Constable, produced the roznamcha in which it is stated that the police party left for Kahnpur at about 1 o'clock early in the morning and returned at 1 o'clock during day -time. D. W. 3 Mohinder Singh Head Constable has given the number of the van by which the police party left for village Kahnpur.
(3.) THE trial Magistrate believed the prosecution version and convicted the petitioner as mentioned above. He expressly observed in the judgment that the defence had not assailed the testimony of Tarlok Singh P. W. 2 on the ground that he was a stock witness. No material discrepancy or inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses having been pointed out to the Court, the version given by these witnesses was up -held.;