J.S. Bedi, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under. On the 22nd April, 1965, Kishore Chand A.S.I. on receipt of some secret information organised a raiding party consisting of Charan Singh P.W. 1, Kultar Singh P.W. 2 Swinder Singh Excise Sub-Inspector or P.W. 3 besides Massa Singh P.W. 5 and raided the Khal in the area of village Mananwala at 3.30 p.m. and found the petitioner distilling illicit liquor. He was apprehended at the spot. The working still was dismantled and its component parts were taken into possession. Besides those parts, two bottles containing liquor exhibits P 10/1 and 2 which were found near the still were also taken into possession and also some lahan partly distilled.
2. On the strength of the above facts, the case against the petitioner was registered and after the investigation he was sent up for trial under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The trial was held by Shri K.C. Maini, Magistrate First Glass, who found the charge proved against the petitioner, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to sis months' rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of two hundred rupees vide his order dated the 27th April, 1966. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by Shri Raghu Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated the 12th August, 1966. The petitioner still was not satisfied and has approached this Court in revision.
3. Mr. Giani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the material witnesses in this case which were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the petitioner were Kishore Chand A.S.I. Charan Singh P.W. 1, Cultar Singh P.W. 2, Excise Sub-Inspector Swinder Singh besides Maasa Singh P.W. 5 and that out of them Kultar Singh and Massa Singh did not support the prosecution case in its entirety but the other three persons did. He submitted, therefore, that as two of the three non official witnesses had not supported this case the whole story became considerably doubtful. This argument of the petitioner's counsel carries hardly any force. It is tree that Kultar Singh and Massa Singh P. Ws. have not supported the prosecution ease but they had attested the recovery memorandum in this case. These two witnesses belong to the village of the petitioner and naturally would not like to incur the displeasure of the petitioner for the rest of their lives. Kultar singh out of them is literate. So it is difficult to believe that he would sign the recovery memorandum without ascertaining what its contents were. While dealing with the case of Charan Singh, the petitioner's counsel submitted that Charan Singh was a stock witness of the police as he had started appearing as witness and joining in police investigations one or two months before this occurrence and that he did appears witness in two such cases. It is true that this witness has admitted this; but this fact alone does not make him a stock witness or stooge of the police and from this circumstance alone I cannot come to the conclusion that this witness was willing to depose at the instance of the prosecution agency. A person who has often been appearing in police cases even does not necessarily become a ask witness or a tool in the hands of the police. It depends on the facts land circumstances of each case. There are persons who, on the other hand, do join the investigation in order to help the police and trace the real offender; and if they do join the police investigation and appear as witness on more than one occasion for the prosecution to help the police in bringing the offenders to justice it would be very improper to term or dub them as stock witness.
4. Moreover, the prosecution case has been supported by the two official witnesses namely. Kishore Chand A.S.I. and swinder Singh Excise Sub-Inspector. There is nothing on the record to show that these witnesses bear any ill-will or grudge against the petitioner or that there were other reasons for them to depose against him. I feel, therefore, that the prosecution has been able to prove their case against the petitioner. The sentence awarded to him is already the minimum. Under the circumstances this petition has no merits and it stands dismissed.