Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) Amir Chand son of Tarlok.Chand, resident of village Babyal, district Ambala, was tried for the offence under section 61 (i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala City. The learned Judical Magistrate convicted Amir Chand under section 61 (1) a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 or, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal filed by Amir Chand was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala by remanding the same under section 428, Code Criminal Procedure of 1898, for complying with the formalities of affidavits, Exhibits P. E. and P. F. of Constable Prem Singh and Mohariir Head-Constable Joginder Singh, respectively. Being aggrieved with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, Amir Chand has filed this revision petition.
(2.) In the Appellate Court, the main objection of Amir Chand was that the affidavits, Exhibits P. E. and P. F. of Constable Prem Singh and Moharrir Head Constable Joginder Singh, were not admissible in evidence and as such there was no evidence on the record to prove that the samples of liquor were not tampered with by any person while the same were in the custody of the Moharrir Head-Constable or in transit from the Police Station to the office of the Chemical Examiner.
(3.) It is not disputed that the affidavits of Constable Prem Singh and Moharrir Head Constable only be r the word "Attested" written by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. This means that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class did not comply with the requirements of attestation of affidavits as he was required to make an endorsement that the deponent whom he knows or whom he believes to be the person who is deposing on the in identification of some other person whom he knows, has made the statement on simple affirmation or solemn affirmation or on oath before him In case Som Nath Vs. The State, 1973 C. Rs.R. 156, it has been held that an affidavit bearing a mere word "attested" cannot be considered valid. If the affidavits, Exhibits P. E. and P F. were not valid then there was no evidence on the record to prove that the samples were not, tampered with by anybody, while they were in the custody of the Moharrir Head- Constable or in transit from the Police Station to the office of the Chemical Examiner.;