A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) Gajjan Singh, Petitioner was brought to trial under section 61 (I) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act for working a still before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka, who vide his judgment dated 24th Feb., 1976, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, his conviction was maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months. The sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine were also maintained, by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this petition.
(2.) Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the independent witness, Mukhtiar Singh Sarpaneh, who was joined in the raiding party, was not produced by the prosecution and that the conviction is based on the testimony of the official witnesses, namely, E.I. Surinder Singh (P.W. 1) and S.I. Arur Chand (P.W. 2). I have perused the record. Mukhtiar Singh Sarpaneh was admittedly joined in the raid party and he was not produced for the reasons best known to the prosecution. The petitioner examined him as D. W. 1 and Sube Singh, a Member Panchayat as D.W. 2. Both these witnesses have stated that the petitioner was arrested by the police but no working still was found and that he had been falsely implicated. The Courts below have not considered the evidence of Sube Singh, Member Panchayat, either. It is settled law that where no independent witness is available, the official witnesses may be relied upon in case there is nothing against their credibility. But, in the present case, Mukhtiar Singh Sarpaneh (D. W. 1) was joined by the police in the raid and he has not supported the prosecution version ; rather he has supported the defence version. In addition, another Member Panchayat of the village, namely, Sube Singh has also supported the defence version. Both these witnesses as the respectables of the village and there is no ground to disbelieve them. Accordingly I am of the view that in such a situation it is not safe to maintain the conviction on the testimony of the official witnesses.
(3.) For the reasons stated, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the Courts below are set aside and the petition is allowed. The petitioner is on bail. The bail bonds executed by him shall stand discharged. Petition allowed.;