Parminder Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Parminder Singh petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was held guilty by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 5.6.1986. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. The petitioner''s appeal against the judgment of the trial Magistrate was partly accepted and through his conviction was maintained, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been filed.

The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 18.7.1993 Jarnail Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector received secret information against the petitioner when he was present at busstand, Dosanjh Khurd and raided the house of the petitioner situated in village Aniheer. The petitioner was apprehended and interrogated when he suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed 23 bags of poppy heads in his residential house under heap of reeds. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing and in the presence of the police officials the petitioner got recovered 23 bags of poppy heads. Sample of 250 grams of poppy heads was separated from each bag and the sample and the bags were sealed with the seal bearing impression JS and were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. Case was got registered against the petitioner and samples were got chemically analysed. After completion of the investigation challan was presented in Court which led to the conviction of the petitioner as referred above.

The prosecution case rested on the testimony of ASI Jarnail Singh PW 1 and ASI Wassan Singh PW2. Affidavits of formal witnesses and report of the Chemical Examiner were also tendered in evidence.

In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the contention of the petitioner was that he neither suffered any disclosure statement nor got recovered bags of poppy heads. He was falsely involved in the case, after the recovery was effected from the Panchayat Ghar. He was arrested in the presence of the village Sarpanch. In his defence Sucha Singh lambardar of village Aniheer was examined as DW1 who deposed that about three years back two Asistant Sub Inspectors and some constables came to the Village and recovered some gunny bags containing poppy heads from the Panchayat Ghar and at that time the petitioner was not present. The petitioner was brought from Phagwara and was presented before the police.

It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the police party raided the house of the petitioner after receiving secret information against him. The house of the petitioner was situated in a thickly populated area. The police party came in a jeep from bus stand Dosanjh and numerous persons met the police party on the way, yet the investigating officer did not try to associate any independent witness before raiding the house of the petitioner and the recovery was, thus, rendered suspicious. This contention of the learned counsel is quite tenable. In the instant case the investigating officer was unable to give any cogent explanation for not associating any respectable from the village before effecting raid. After secret information was received by the investigating officer he had travelled from a bus stand to the village of the petitioner. The house of the petitioner was situated in the village Abadi and it cannot be said that no person was available who could be associated. ASI Jarnail Singh who investigated this case admitted in crossexamination that he had not asked any one to join the police party before effecting recovery. Nonjoining of any independent witness in these circumstances rendered the case of the prosecution suspicious.

It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had examined one respectable person from the village in his defence i.e. Sucha Singh Lambardar and he made deposition to the effect that in fact recovery was effected from the Panchayat Ghar and he was present with the police party along with Lachhman Singh, Member Panchayat and other respectables. The petitioner was not there but he was involved on account of suspicion after he was brought from Phagwara. He was subjected to a lengthy crossexamination but nothing could be brought on record to show as to why his testimony should not be relied upon but neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court referred to the statement of Sucha Singh Lambardar and decided the case only on the basis of the testimony of police officials who were interested in the result of the case. Nonconsideration of the defence evidence caused miscarriage of justice and entitled the petitioner to acquittal. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred to the case of Beant and others v. State of Punjab, 1985(2) SLR 335. In this case also two witnesses had been examined in defence but their evidence was neither considered nor appreciated and no findings were given by the Court visavis their testimony. It was, therefore, held that because of nonconsideration of the evidence of the defence witnesses prejudice was caused to the petitioner which resulted in miscarriage of justice.

In the instant case the trial Court did not discuss the statement of Sucha Singh Lambardar and no findings were given to the effect that his testimony lacked credence. The learned lower Appellate Court did not refer to the statement of Sucha Singh nor his testimony was appreciated either way and this certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner and he is entitled to acquittal on this ground also.

In view of the above discussion, I find that case against the petitioner was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction and sentence cannot be maintained. The revision petition is consequently accepted, conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 9 of the Opium Act.