S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) PURAN Singh petitioner was charged for being in possession for a working still and having been found guilty thereof, was convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in an elaborate and lucid judgment not only upheld his conviction but confirmed his sentence. He has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 20th June, 1978, Assistant Sub -Inspector Gurmit Singh alongwith Constable Jagjit Singh, Excise Inspector Gurbanx Singh and some other police officials happened to be present near the Government Seed Farm, Ladhowal, when he received secret information that Puran Singh petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by working a still opposite to Jhuggaian Hukam Singh. After sending ruqa to the police station. Assistant Sub -Inspector Gurmit Singh rushed towards Jhuggian Hukan Singh alongwith others and found the petitioner actually busy in distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. He was apprehended. The working still was dismantled and its component parts were taken into possession. The drum, Exhibit P.1. which was being used as a boiler was found to contain 60 kgs of lahan. The sample taken out from the liquor contained in the receiver pipa was sent to Chemical Examiner, who vide his report, Exhibit P.E. opined that it was liquor of illicit origin. After necessary investigation, the accused was prosecuted adn convicted as indicated above.
(3.) TO establish its case, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Assistant Sub -Inspector Gurmit Singh and Excise Inspector Gurbans Singh. The petitioner pleaded false complicity in the case. The prosecution case herein seems to bristle with a number of infirmities, the collective effect of which inevitably is that its case becomes obviously clouded with a doubt. The first significant thing to notice herein is that it is admitted by the aforesaid two official witnesses that at the time of raid, some persons from the public were moving about, but no attempt was made to join anybody from the public in the raiding party. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in not joining with him independent witnesses, although available in the locality, renders the prosecution case highly doubtful against the petitioner. This view finds support from a decision in Ram Narain v. The State, 1974 C.L.R. 436. In this state of affairs, it will not be safe to sustain the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the sole testimony of the official witnesses as the same loses its evidentiary value on account of the fact that none from the public was joined in the raiding party at the time of raid.;