B.S.YADAV,J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the above criminal revision, as well as Cr. R. 1493/1980, Gurmel Singh v. State of Punjab as they arise out of the same judgment.
(2.) IT is not necessary to give the prosecution story in detail. Suffice it to say that on 23.9.1977, Gurmel Singh, the present petitioner (in both the revisions petition) and Sawaranjit Singh were found distilling illicit liquor by use of a working still by the raiding party which consisted of Police Officials, Excise Inspector and one non-official witness named Amar Singh. They were also found in possession of 2-1/4 bottles of illicit liquor and 16 kgs. of Lahan. During the investigation of that case, Gurmel Singh made a disclosure statement and got recovered one drum which contained Lahan which was found fit for distilling illicit liquor. The Police presented two separate challans in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ludhiana. One was in respect of the commission of an offence by Gurmel Singh under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short the Act) and the second was against Swaranjit Singh and Gurmel Singh and was in respect of the commission of an offence under section 61(1)(c) and 61(1)(a) of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate tried both the cases separately. In the case which was against Sawarnjit Singh and Gurmel Singh,he acquitted the former, but convicted the latter under both the offences and sentenced him to imprisonment and to pay fine. In the other case under section 61(1)(a) of the Act, he convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment and to pay fine. Gurmel Singh filed separate appeals in the two cases which were heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The appeal filed in the case relating to section 61(1)(a) and section 61(1)(c) of the Act was registered in that Court at Serial No. 213 of 1980 and the other appeal at serial No. 214 of 1980. The learned Sessions Judge clubbed both the appeals. He dealt in detail with the case under section 61(1)(c) and section 61(1)(a) of the Act and devoted only one paragraph to the appeal arising out of the case under section 61(1)(a) of the Act. He dismissed both the said appeals vide the impugned order. Feeling dissatisfied, Gurmel Singh has filed these two criminal revision petitions in this Court. The present one relates to the case under section 61(1)(a) and section 61(1)(c) of the Act, while the other No. Cr. R. 1493/1980 relates to the case under section 61(1)(a) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the clubbing the two appeals by the learned Sessions Judge has caused prejudice to the petitioner. He argued that in both the cases, separate evidence was recorded by the trial Court who decided those cases separately, while discussing in detail the evidence led in each case. He argued that in the case relating the section 61(1)(c) and section 61(1)(a) of the Act, Amar Singh, the non-official witness had not supported the prosecution version and was got declared hostile by the prosecution and with the permission of the Court, the Assistant Public Prosecutor had cross-examined him, but in the other case the said witness, some portions of whose statement were against the prosecution was not got declared hostile. He argued that while disposing of the two appeals by one judgment, the learned Sessions Judge appears to have been influenced by the evidence led in the case under section 61(1)(c) and section 61(1)(a) of the Act, while disposing of the other appeal filed by the Petitioner against his conviction and sentence under section 61(1)(a) of the Act and that is the reason that he has disposed of the other appeal by devoting only one paragraph in that judgment. He has also cited Doat Alia alias Sheik Deoat Ali Sarkar and other v. King Emperor, AIR 1928 Calcutta 230 wherein it was remarked : "In this case it appears that there were two separate cases in each of which the accused were convicted by the trial court. An appeal was brought in each case by the convicted persons and they came before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca. His procedure was this : He tried the two appeals together as one case and made up his mind that there were two contradictory stories. Having found which of the two stories was true and having found that the other was untrue, he allowed one of the appeals and dismissed the other. It seems reasonably plain that the duty of the learned Judge was to keep each appeal absolutely separate and to deal with it on it merits, confining himself to the evidence given in that case and in that alone. As one of these appeals has been allowed and the persons have been acquitted that matter is not before us; but as regards the parties whose appeal has been dismissed this application is brought. In our opinion, the rule should be made absolute. The appeal in this case must be heard again and we direct that it be heard by a different learned Judge to be nominated by the Sessions Judge." 3A. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the opinion that the decision of two appeals by one judgment has caused prejudice to the petitioner. From the judgment it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge discussed the evidence in detail in the case under section 61(1)(c) and section 61(1)(a) of the Act and then appears to have formed an opinion that the other case under section 61(1)(a) was also true and that is the reason that he devoted only one paragraph to the other case, while the judgment of the trial Court in case under section 61(1)(a) runs into 6 pages.
(3.) HENCE , I accept both the revision petitions and set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, relating to both the cases and direct that both the appeals be heard again and disposed of separately. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge Ludhiana on the 16th day of August, 1983.;