R.L. Anand, J.
1. Petitioner Lakha Singh has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 29.9.1989 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar who maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ for allegedly found in possession of a working still. In this case the raid was conducted on 26.8.1986 by ASI Darshan Singh who tried to associate some independent witness but none was ready to join the police party, as a result of which the police party raided the house of Lakha Singh and found him distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. At the time of his arrest the petitioner was feeding under the working still. The working still was dismantled and cooled down and approximately 7 bottles of illicit liquor along with component parts of the working still were taken into possession. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for distilling illicit liquor. Resultantly, ruqa Ex. PC was sent to the police station for registration of a case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. After obtaining the report Ex. PA of the Excise Inspector the petitioner was challenged under Section 61(1)(c) of the said Act.
2. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner who filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29.9.1989. Still not satisfied Lakha Singh has filed the present revision.
3. I have gone through the record of this case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be disturbed in view of the statement of Excise Inspector Daljit Singh, HC Samma Singh and ASI Darshan Singh. It stands proved from the statements of HC Samma Singh and ASI Darshan Singh that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still at his house. It is also proved by the report Ex. PA given by the Excise Inspector Daljit Singh that the liquor found in the bottles was illicit.
4. The only submission which has been raised from the side of the petitioner is that no independent witness has been associated by the Investigating officer and, therefore, the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been compiled with. This submission cannot be accepted because the case of the prosecution is that efforts were made to take support of the independent witnesses but nobody was ready to join the police party. In this view of the matter, the benefit of doubt cannot be granted to the petitioner. At the most the evidence of the official witnesses has to be scrutinised with care and caution. No aniums has been pointed out against the investigating officer. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is hereby maintained.
5. So far as the sentence aspect is concerned, the raid was conducted as back as on 26.8.1986 and the petitioner is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last 17 years. In these circumstances, I am inclined to give the benefit of probation to the petitioner who is directed to furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within one month undertaking that during the period of one year he shall not commit any offence and shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. He shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ as costs of litigation to the State. In case the petitioner violates the terms of the bonds, he shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to receive the sentience. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT accordingly.
