Gurbachan Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Garg, J.

On 29.12.1985, at about 3 P.M. on the basis of secret information the police party headed by Head Constable Manjit Singh consisting of HC Gurdev Chand, Constables Jagdish Singh and Roshan Lal and Charan Singh a member Panchayat of village Abdulapur, raided the residential house of the petitioner in village Abdulapur, in the area of Police Station, Tanda, Tehsil Dasuya district Hoshiarpur and recovered 200 Kgs of Lahan from a drum Ex.P1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. The petitioner, therefore, was tried under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act.

On the testimony of HC Gurdev Singh PW1 and HC Manjit Singh PW2 and EI Sadhu Singh, PW3, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in appeal.

In this revision, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged independent witness Charan Singh has not been produced to corroborate the testimony of the official witnesses. If the evidence on record is examined carefully, even the drum which contained the lahan could not be identified. In the drum shown in the Court, there was found to be a hole and with such a hole in the drum the lahan could not stand in this container. It also remained obscure as to how the case property was transported to the Police Station. There were other discrepancies as well. The petitioner claimed enmity with the police and the witnesses. It is also not denied that various other members of the family of the petitioner also live in the said house. It is not explained how the possession of the petitioner is pindown. The house was lying open when the recovery was effected. So in the aforesaid circumstances the case of the prosecution against the petitioner remain doubtful. Before a person can be indicted for a criminal offence there must be a proper and definite evidence to implicate him. A doubtful version and a halfhearted investigation in the case in hand, cannot be said to be sufficient to convict the petitioner. Therefore the conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained and benefit of doubt must go to him. The revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

Revision allowed.