S.S.SANDHAWALIA,J. - (1.) THE correctness of the view expressed in two single Bench decisions of this Court reported as Gardawar Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 240 and Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab 1976 Chand LR (Cri) 81 (both by the same learned Judge) has been challenged bo -fore us in this reference primarily on the ground that the observations therein run counter to those made by their Lordships in Sri Chand Batra v. State of U. P. . , AIR1974 SC 639 , 1974 Crilj590 , (1974 )4 SCC247 , [1974 ]2 SCR821 , 1974 (6 )UJ149 (SC ).
(2.) KARTAR Singh petitioner was brought to trial under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act for being in possession of a working still and was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Zira and sentenced to the minimum punishment provided under the law, namely, six months rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 200.00 on the 21st of Dec. 1972. The conviction and the sentence of the petitioner were upheld and his appeal dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his detailed judgment of the 17th of July, 1973. The petitioner thereafter preferred the present revision petition. It is unnecessary to delineate the facts in any great detail because the issues agitated before us are primarily those of law. The case in hand is typical of the recovery of a working still. In consequence of a secret information received, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party whilst distilling illicit liquor towards the north -eastern side of his village Daulewal. At that particular moment he was feeding the fire under the hearth and was apprehended at the spot and the still was dismantled and cooled. Apart from other instruments of distillation, about 60 kilograms of lahan (wash) in a drum are alleged to have been recovered from his possession. P. W. 2 Gurdial Singh, Excise Inspector who was accompanying the raiding party on the 28th of Sept. 1971 tested this lahan (wash) and recorded a report which was subsequently proved as Exihibit P. D. during the trial. This deserves notice in extenso: I have tested the contents of the drum boiler recovered from the above -mentioned accused while he was working the still. I find it mixture of gur, water and kikar barks. Its smell is alcoholic, taste is bitter sour and colour is dark brownish. It is fully fermented lahan (wash) which has been partly distilled and is still fit for further distillation. The lahan is about 60 Kgs. After the test the drum boiler is sealed with the seal 'gs'. I am distillery trained.
(3.) WHILST in the witness -box P. W. 2 Gurdial Singh further deposed that he was distillery trained and has an experience of 13 to 14 years and further that he had occassion to test lahan (wash) in innumerable cases. In a lengthy cross -examination directed against him by the counsel for the petitioner, the competency of the witness to opine about the lahan (wash) was not even remotely challenged nor was any issue joined regarding the composition or the strength of the liquid allegedly recovered from the petitioner. This was particularly so in the context of the defence taken on behalf of the petitioner that no recovery whatsoever was made from him and that he had been called along with some other persons from his village and falsely implicated in the case. Equally in this context it deserves notice that no contention was raised before the trial Court that the contents of the drum did not contain lahan. Both in the grounds of appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur as also in the grounds of de -vision in this High Court, no such point either expressly or impliedly was raised that the liquid recovered was something other than lahan (wash ).;