Kikkar Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

This is a revision petition filed by Kikkar Singh against his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 4000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 9 of the Opium Act.

On 3rd October, 1979, District Inspector Harbans Singh on receipt of secret information along with Bakshish Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police and Mit Singh Assistant SubInspector raided and surrounded the house of the petitioner in village Dosanjh. The petitioner is alleged to have come out of his house carrying a gunny bag which on search was found to contain 16 kg and 500 gm of opium. A sample was taken out of the same and sent to the Chemical Examiner. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, it contained morphine.

Mr. Baljinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in the same raid Inspector Harbans Singh had also shown the recovery of illicit liquor from the petitioner in consequence of a disclosure statement. The petitioner was acquitted in that excise case and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, observed that the conduct of the police in converting the recovery into discovery cannot be appreciated. Thus the learned counsel submits that the acquittal in that excise casts a grave doubt on the version of the prosecution regarding the recovery of opium from the petitioner in this case. To support his proposition he has placed reliance on a Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 577 (HC), wherein it was held that if the prosecution witnesses were already disbelieved regarding one recovery no reliance can be placed on their testimony.

Apart from this, the prosecution version on the face of it seems to be improbable. The police party had surrounded the house of the petitioner and it looks odd that he would come out of the house with a gunny bag containing opium. The only independent witness, namely, Bakhtawar Singh joined by the police was given up by the prosecution and he was examined as a defence witness. He supported the version of the defence. I have also gone through the testimony of the official witnesses and find a number of discrepancies therein. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case against the petitioner stands proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently I give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioner.