S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) FOR having been found in possession of 50 bottles of illicit liquor, Amrik Singh petitioner was brought to trial for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, and having been found guilty thereof, was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. One appeal, the learned Sessions Judge. Patiala, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. He has now come up in revision.
(2.) ON 7th March, 1981, Assistant Sub -Inspector Kewal Chand alongwith some other police officials and one Baij Nath from the general public, set out for village Sarala Kalan to investigate a case (FIR No. 15 dated 20.2.1978 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code) of Police Station Ghanaur. When the police party reached the Bhakra bridge situated in the area of village Sarala Kalan, the petitioner was coming from the opposite direction on a cycle and when he attempted to flee on catching sight of the said party, he was secured and on his search, a gunny bag, Exhibit P.1, which was being carried on the carrier of his cycle containing 2 tubes, Exhibits P. 2 and P. 3 of illicit liquor were recovered. The illicit liquor was transferred into 50 bottles after taking out the samples. The samples taken were sent to the Chemical Examiner which were subsequently found to be illicit origin.
(3.) THE case against the petitioner rests on the virtually unimpeached testimony of Assistant Sub -Inspector Kewal Chand and Constable Tarsem Chand. The independent public witness Baij Nath had to be given up being won over. The defence of the petitioner was rather a curious and ingenious one. It was pleaded that the petitioner had filed a complaint against Sub -Inspector Hakam Singh and on that account, he was falsely involved in this case. The trial Court after going through the evidence of Bhagal Singh, DW and a copy of the complaint, Exhibit D.l, unhesitatingly found that the plea taken by him was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand. The Appellate Court has affirmed the said finding. Faced with the uphill task of assailing the concurrent forthright findings of fact given by the two Courts below, Mr. A.N. Mittal was compelled to fall back on arguments with regard to the minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Deposing as they were after a considerable period of occurrence, these discrepancies appear to me as those of truth. Nothing meaningful could be pointed out which could possibly detract from the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses. The prosecution herein was not remiss in not associating a public witness but he had to be given up for his refusal to support the prosecution case. It is significant to recall that the petitioner also did not choose to put Baij Nath in the witness box in support of his defence. During the course of arguments, it was casually contended that the seal after sealing the sample was not handed over by the Investigating Officer to Baij Nath. This is merely a finical account of criticism which does not in any way dislodge the prosecution story and the mode and manner of recovery of 50 bottles of illicit liquor from the petitioner. Even otherwise the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not res integra. It has been laid down in a Full bench decision of this Court in Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Revision No. 969 of 1979, decided on February 16, 1982, that there is neither a statutory requirement nor a precedential mandate for handing over a seal used by a police official in the course of an investigation to a third person forthwith. It has been further remarked that it had been so done, the non -production of such a witness cannot by itself effect the merits of the trial.;