Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Physical test of the so called Lahan. - The convictions under Sections 61(1)(a) and 61 (1)(::) of the Punjab Excise Act can be sustained only if from the prosecution evidence it is fully established that he. was distilling liquor by running a working still. Ibis can be possible only if the substance contained in the boiler the constituent part of the working still, is found to be Lahan or that the contents of the receiver bottle, connected by means of the tube with the boiler, are found to be illicit liquor. It is not the case of the prosecution that the so called illicit liquor and Lahan, recovered from the possession of the petitioner were sent to the Chemical Examiner. The prosecution simply examined Excise Inspector to prove that the substance found in the boiler and the pitcher etc. was Lahan. He, in his statement, d00s not tell about his qualifications on the basis of which hp claims himself as an expert for testing Lahan. He simply states that he is distillery trained. He has nowhere stated as to what type of training he had received in the distillery for testing Lahan. He had told that on conducting physical test (lf the recovered substance, he found that it was a mixture of water, Gur and Kikar bark and its colour, smell and taste showed that it was lahan. He has no where stated as to what was the colour, taste and smell like of that substance. It is also not stated by him that the aforesaid mixture, examined by him, had undergone a process of fermentation and, as such, it was fit for distillation and yielding illicit liquor. Ordinarily, when an Excise Official carries out physical test of mixture of water, Gur and Kikar bark, recovered in an excise case, he finds that its colour is darkbrows, its taste is sour and bitter and that its smell is alcoholic and it had undergone a process of fermentation and as such it is fit for distillation and yielding liquor. But all this information and as such it is fit for distillation and yielding liquor. But all this information is lacking as far as statement of Excise Inspector is concerned. It is therefore, evident that Excise Inspector did not comply with even the minimum requirements of conducting physical test of the so-called Lahan in the case. Accordingly, his statement has no evidentiary value for proving that the substance recovered from the boiler and the pitcher was nothing else but Lahan. That being so, it can legitimately be stated that the prosecution has failed to prove very important ingredient of the offence under Section 61(1)(a) and Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act.