Jarnail Singh vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

On 5.1.1983 ASI Hans Raj, along with some police officials, apprehended the petitioner and recovered a tube carried by him in a gunny bag on his head. This tube contained illicit liquor and it was measured. The quantity was found to be equivalent to 50 bottles. A sample was taken therefrom and Ruqqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case. Sample was got tested vide report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PT, showing the contents thereof to be illicit liquor. After report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was put in and the petitioner was charged, the prosecution examined ASI Hans Raj (PW1) and Constable Lal Singh (PW2). The Assistant Public Prosecutor closed the evidence after tendering the affidavits Ex. PE and PF of MHC Jaspal Singh and Constable Dwarka Nath respectively and Ex.PD report of the Chemical Examiner. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to RI for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for one month.

The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on merit, but his sentence was reduced to RI for nine months, while the sentence of fine was maintained.

The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that there was no independent person joined by the Investigating Officer in support of the prosecution case, in spite of the fact that it was a raiding party. Usually such recoveries are made on the bank of the river. He has also pointed out that the affidavits of MHC Jaspal Singh and Constable Dwarka Das are defective and, therefore, there is no link evidence to support the prosecution case with regard to the contents of the tube to be illicit liquor.

The learned Counsel for the State has supported the case of the prosecution.

I have looked into the verification on the affidavits Ex. PE and PF. The affidavit of MHC Jaspal Singh indicates that on 5.1.1983 ASI Hans Raj had deposited with him the case property, as also the sample of illicit liquor, sample of seal and sample of illicit liquor was handed over to Dwarka Das on 12.1.1983 for handing over the same to the Chemical Examiner. To the similar effect is the affidavit Ex.PF of Constable Dwarka Das, that the sample was handed over to him on 12.1.1983 which he delivered to the Chemical Examiner on 13.1.1983 after getting the docket from Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Ferozepur. Verification on both the affidavits is defective; inasmuch as the contents of both the affidavits have been stated to be through some knowledge, as well as information. This type of verification has been held to be of no use in criminal cases. Both the affidavits are, therefore, not admissible, leading to the result that the link evidence to the report of the sample is missing.

Apart from the above discussion, this recovery is stated to have taken place on 5.1.1983 and this case has been argued today after about 61/2 years. This period is otherwise sufficient to quash the proceedings.

In view of the above discussion, I accept the revision; set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Courts below and acquit him of the charge.

Revision accepted.