Narinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

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

The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. nine months and fine of Rs. 500/, in default R.I. for four months under section 9 of the Opium Act by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide his order dated 9.11.1983. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower Appellate Court. The petitioner has come up on revision to this Court.

On 13.1.1981, Dilbag Singh PW 2 along with HC Prem Sagar PW 1 and one Ram Lal was present in the area of village Jharan. They intercepted the petitioner and from his possession 2 kg. of opium was recovered. The sample was sent for chemical examination. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, the same was found to be opium. Ram Lal, the solitary witness from the public was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the petitioner. Consequently, the evidence consists of two official witnesses, namely Dilbag Singh ASI PW 2 and HC Prem Sagar PW 1.

In his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the recovery of opium from him and came out with the following versions :

"ASI Dilbag Singh is inimical towards me. My brother had filed a complaint against him under Section 325 I.P.C. etc. and I used to pursue the case along with my brother. He had been pressing me to ask my brother to withdraw the case and I had been very adamant and was not ready to ask him to withdraw the complaint. He had the impression that but for the accused the case could not have been filed and pursued in the Court. I had come to Sangrur and was going to Ralla vial Lakhmirwala to see my maternal relations. ASI Dilbag Singh met me at the main road junction where roads to cheeman meet with the road coming from Lakhmirwala in the area of Sunam revenue estate. Mohinder Singh was accompanying me at that time."

ASI Dilbag Singh PW while being crossexamined has admitted in so many words that complaint Exhibit D1 was filed against him by brother of the petitioner earlier to the present recovery of the alleged opium. In view of the fact that ASI Dilbag Singh PW has a definite animus against the petitioner and the fact that the only nonofficial witness has been given up, I think it would not be safe to allow the conviction of the petitioner to stay. Consequently, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and acquite him of the charge. Fine, if recovered, would be refunded to him.

Accused acquitted.