Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Recovery of working still. - Contrary statements of PWs. Head constable stated that place was surrounded by Sarkandas on three sides and there was rivulet on fourth side. An- other PW stated that there were wheat fields on one side and rivulet on three sides. Accused acquitted on basis of contradictions. The Excise Act provided stringent punishment. Strong piece of evidence is required to convict the accused. Fouler the offence stronger should be the evidence. "Bhattal" not entered as case property by Investigating Officer. It was not proved that from lahan drum a plastic pipe was going to the can containing distilled liquor via 'Bhattal'. Com- plete structure of working still not proved to have been recovered. Prosecution failed. Recovery of working still and three drums of Lahan containing 200 kgs of Lahan - Drums when produced in court during trial, they were empty - Drums were not having any chit or other details connected with the case of accused - Held, when case property itself is not being maintained properly and there is nothing to connect the same with the case, chances of false implication cannot be ruled out - Conviction of accused set aside. Hukam Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 146(P&H)