Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

The petitioner has come up in revision against his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under section 9 of the Opium Act.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 25 June, 1982, SubInspector Pritpal Singh alone with some other police officials went to the village of the petitioner for a raid. They raided the house of the petitioner and found him present there at 9 a.m. on that day. The petitioner was taken into custody and in consequence of his disclosure statement he got recovered 3 kg of opium wrapped in piece of glazed paper concealed under a rubbish heap. A sample was taken out of the opium and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. According to the report, Exhibit PE, the sample was found to be opium containing 4.2 percent morphine. The petitioner was arrested and sent up for trial.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner pleaded false implication and did not lead any evidence in defence.

The prosecution evidence consists of the statements of Assistant SubInspector Balkar Singh and Head Constable Kuldip Singh. No independent witness was joined by the raid party. The explanation given by the prosecution witness that they wanted to join persons from the general public but none came forward is not acceptable. Every citizen is under a legal obligation to join investigation when called upon and the police is competent to prosecute him if he refuses to do so. It would be unsafe to accept this explanation of the prosecution, because this excuse can always be put forth by the prosecution. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that the case against the petitioner is free form doubt. Consequently I accept this revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioner.