M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS a criminal revision petition arising out of the judgment dt. May 17, 1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) The accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -, or in default of fine to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. Along with the accused petitioner the learned trial court had convicted the wife of the accused petitioner but the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the wife of the charge under Section 16/54 of the Act.
(2.) IN assailing the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the petitioner's counsel has contended that there is no evidence that after the sample was taken by the Excise Inspector and till it reached the Chemical Examiner, the seal thereof remained intact. He also contended that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and lastly it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone the sentence for more than one month. In my opinion there is sufficient material on record that on September 28,1977 the Excise Inspector having obtained information that the accused petitioner was in -possession of illicit liquor, had taken the search without warrant and at the time of search the accused -petitioner was not there but his wife was present there. It was found that two pitchers full of wash and one 'Pipa' and silver containers were there. Sample was taken of wash which was sent to chemical examiner and the Chemical Examiner vide report Ex. P 8 found that the sample of wash contained 90.14 percent under proof ethyl alcohol. A charge -sheet was filed and after trial the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner and his wife, as aforesaid, but on appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the wife, but convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. Coming to the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence that the seal on the sample remained to the Chemical Examiner, it may be stated that it has come in the statement of PW 5 Dhokal Ram that he had sealed the sample and put his own seal on it. He stated that there are administrative orders that the samples taken in a month should be sent after the month because there is shortage of staff. He stated that the seal on the sample remained intact throughout and there was not even suggestion that after being taken the sample was handed over to somebody -else. It has some in the statement of Hajarilal PW 6 that he was given the sample of the case by the Inspector and he had taken it to the Chemical Examiner and obtained receipt. A look at Ex. P 7 will show that there is an endorsement of the Chief Public Analyst that one sealed sample was received from Hajarilal. It further appears from Ex. P 8 that the seal on the container was found to be intact and the seal container was similar to the seal impression as given on covering letter. It further appears that the sample was analysed and it was found to contain 90.14 per cent under proof ethyl alcohol. Thus, there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the seal of the sample till it reached to the Chemical Examiner was tampered with.
(3.) COMING to the next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case There are some witnesses and no doubt they are the witnesses of the department, PW 5 Dhokal and PW 6 Hajari and PW Dharm Singh, who have supported the case of the prosecution and other independent witnesses PW 1 to PW 3 have not supported the prosecution case. The law is well settled that the trial court, who bad seen the demeanour of the witnesses, despite the fact that they are motbirs, reliance can be placed on the their testimony. If any case is needed to be cited reference may be made to Jashwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1957 RLW 438, which has been throughout followed by this Court. The witnesses who were relied upon by the learned trial court have put their signatures on the memos and they have signed it. But they did not support it. Under this circumstances taking into consideration the state of affairs, if the learned trial court and the appellate court did not think that the prosecution case is rendered doubtful, by not supporting it by the independent witnesses, in my opinion no interference is called for in this revision petition.;