Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Prosecution to prove that material recovered was Lahan. - It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the material recovered from the possession of the accused or what he was found distilling was Lahan. In this case neither the illicit liquor which was found in the bottle was sent to the Chemical Examiner nor the Lahan recovered from the boiler was sub- jected to Chemical Test. In Punjab the Excise Officials who are examined as expert witnesses to test Lahan generally test from smell, colour and taste. The Excise official examined did not state as to what was the colour, taste, or smell of the material examined by him. Under these circumstances, the accused cannot be convicted. The Excise officials had only stated, that the colour of the material examined by him was brownish, its taste was bitter and the smell was alcoholic only, but these three ingredients are not the only things to prove, that the material contained in the drum allegedly recovered from the accused was Lahan. The excise official did not specify his proficiency or capability to distinguish Lahan from other things. He no doubt stated about his experience for 13 or 14 years but again failed to tell the field in which his experience was, i.e. whether in testing of Lahan or in the service of the department. Unless elucidation by way of explanation was available from the testimony of the Excise Inspector the court cannot read between the lines to find those words which are not actually there. One does not become an expert by simply describing himself. There failure on the part of the accused to test his expert knowledge during cross examination hardly improves matters in favour of the prosecution. Accused found distilling illicit liquor by a working still. Lahan recovered. Recovered sub- stance sought to be proved as being lahan by examining Excise Inspector as a witness. Statement of Excise Inspector only indicating that on conducting physical test of recovered substance, it was found to be a mixture of water, gur and kikar bark. Nature of its colour, smell and taste not described nor was it stated by him that the mixture had undergone a process of fermentation and was fit for distillation. Minimum requirements of conducting physical test lacking. Important ingredient of offence not proved. Conviction set aside. Prosecution to prove that the drum contained Lahan or that illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused. Where the Excise Inspector stated that he tasted the contents of the drum boiler and found that same to be partly distilled in a fermented condition. He did not say anything about the contents of the so-called lahan. Lahan consists of water, gur and same fermenting agent. The Excise Inspector did not say that the contents of the boiler contained any fermenting agent. In his report it is simply recorded that it was a mixture of gur, water and kikar bark. Out of which some liquor had been distilled and some could yet be distilled. He has also not stated that the kikar, bark was the fermenting agent. There is nothing in report or in the statement of the Excise Inspector, that he was an expert. He did not give his qualifications. He did not say as to how many cases of lahan he had examined. There is nothing on the record to show that he is distillery trained. He also did not state as to what was the colour, taste and smell of the alleged lahan. Held, therefore, that his evidence does not fulfill the requirements of an expert and as such the prosecution has failed to prove that the material in the drum recovered from the possession of the accused was lahan as to fall within the mischief of Section 71 of the Punjab Excise Act.