SURINDER SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent decision of two Courts below as per which Gian Singh, petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of th Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.
(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, Assistant Sub -Inspector Sita Ram (P.W.2) accompanied by Excise Inspector Surjit Singh (P.W.1) and some other officials was proceeding on the bank of River Sutlej from the side of Village Manewal Sholay on patrol. The party associated with them Kapoor Singh son of Harnam Singh, Member Panchayat. When the party reached near the Government Seed Farm, the petitioner along with two other persons was seen coming from the side of Jhugian Gulab Singh. They were apprehended. The petitioner was found carrying a rubber tube on his cycle and on inspection of th same, the tube found to be full of illicit liquor. The contents of the tube were converted into 25 bottles of 750 mls each. A sample measuring 180 mls. of liquor was also taken separately and sealed. It is stated that in spite of this recovery, the petitioner was allowed to go away on furnishing a personal bond.
(3.) THE petitioner in his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations and attributed his false implication to Kapoor Singh, Member Panchayat. He also denied having thumb -marked the personal bond Exhibit DI at the spot. The petitioner was, however, convicted and sentenced as noticed above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted various points which may be considered in turn. The first contention is that after the alleged recovery of a large quantity of illicit liquor measuring 25 bottles, it is not believable that the Police Party would let the petitioner off by simply getting his thumb -impression on a personal bond. The second submission is that on the petitioner denying his thumb -impression on the personal bond, the document was sent to the Director of Forensic Laboratory, who opined that it was not possible to compare the thumb -impression as the same was submerged. In spite of this fact, the Courts below had taken the document as an incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. Furthermore, the personal bond is said to have been attested by Gajjan Singh who failed to support the prosecution and on the other -hand, appeared as defence witness to depose that no such bond had been executed. The contentions noticed above have indeed substance, and there is hardly any effective reply to the same. Another point which is material in this case is that the prosecution claims that the raiding party had joined with them an independant witness Kapoor Singh, but the said witness was never produced at the trial. In view of all this material, it is not feasible to place reliance upon the testimony of the two official witensses alone. The circumstances enumerated above certainly entitle the petitioner to the benefit of doubt and the same is afforded to him. The Revisions Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below are set aside. The fine, if paid by him shall be refunded to him. His bail bound stands discharged. Petition allowed.;