S.D.BAJAJ,J - (1.) ACCUSED -petitioner Avtar Singh was found by Police Station City, Ferozepore Police in possession of 37875 mls. of illicit liquor in the area of fish market, Ferozepore on 24th October, 1983. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepore, vide his judgment dated 8th July, 1986 convicted him of the commission of offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine accused-petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 4 months.
(2.) IN appeal decided on 16th September, 1987 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, remanded the case back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision, after recording evidence of two prosecution witnesses in Head Constable Devi Dayal and Constable Shingara Singh and examining the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in regard to additional evidence aforesaid. Criminal Revision No. 960 of 1987 has been filed by accused-petitioner Avtar Singh for setting aside the direction for fresh trial obtaining in the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore dated 16th September, 1987 and ordering acquittal of the accused-petitioner.
(3.) IDENTICALLY the same point was considered by the Court in Jagdish Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 182, Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 243 and Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana through Government Food Inspector, 1987(1) Recent CR 653 wherein it was observed. "Indeed, in the situation which has arisen here it would be pertinent to keep in mind what was said by the Supreme Court in case Machander v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792, wherein it was observed :- "Justice is not one sided. It has many facets and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on us to se that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused for crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detections of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go. Except in clear cases of guilt, where the error is purely technical, the forces that are arrayed against the accused should no more be permitted in special appeal to repair the effects of their bungling that an accused should be permitted to repair gaps in his defence which he could and ought to have made good in the lower courts. The scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for the accused or against him, whether in favour of the State or not, and one broad rule must apply in all cases." ;