S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) GAJJAN Singh and his wife Bhagvan Kaur petitioners were charged under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, for being in possession of a working still, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. They were found guilty of the offence and convicted accordingly. Bhagvan Kaur was released on probation while Gajjan Singh was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by an elaborate and lucid judgment upheld their conviction and sentence. They have now come up in revision.
(2.) ON 8th February, 1979, the Assistant Sub-Inspector Malkiat Singh along with Constable Jaspal Singh and others was going in the area of village Majara Kalan along with the bandh of Sutlej river, when he saw some smoke coming out of the sarkandas. The police party raided that place and found that the petitioners were distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still. Bhagwan Kaur was feeding the fire, while Gajjan Singh was handling the receiver tin. On seeing the police party, Gajjan Singh ran away and jumped into the river and crossed it although he was unsuccessfully chased by the policy party. Bhagwan Kaur was apprehended. The working still was cooled, dismantled and thereafter its component parts were taken into possession. As is evident, the case against the petitioners rests on the evidence of Jaspal SIngh, P.W. 1 and Malkiat Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, P.W. 2 and Gurbans Singh, Excise Inspector, P.W. 3. The petitioner pleaded false complicity in the case. It was, however, pleaded by Bhagwan Kaur that her father Hukam Singh and brother Puran Singh had filed complaints against some officials of the Police Station Saddar, Ludhiana and on that account she and her husband had been falsely implicated in the case. Sketchy evidence in the shape of oral testimony of Hukam Singh, (D.W.) has been adduced on this point. The trial court unhesitatingly found that this plea of the petitioners was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand. The Appellate Court has affirmed the said finding.
(3.) MR . P.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to make any serious dent in the prosecution case against the petitioners. The testimony of Assistant Sub-Inspector Malkiat Singh and Head Constable Jaspal Singh has been reappraised by me and it is wholly consistent and forthright. The acceptance of the same by both the Courts below is consequently affirmed. The hackneyed argument that since both the prosecution witnesses are officials, their evidence should not be accepted, has also been raised. This has obviously to be repelled in view of the string of authorities that the official testimony is not on a disadvantage and has to be appraised without bias. The learned counsel had to fall back on the rather infinitesimal discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses on matters wholly collateral. The discrepancies pointed out are of the untutored witnesses, whose evidence was recorded after a lapse of about 1/1-4 years.;