Puran Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

By way of this revision the petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence of rigours imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 9 of the Opium Act.

On 21st January, 1982, Sadhu Ram Assistant SubInspector along with some other police officials held a nakabandi near village Ghore Chak in Ferozepur district. On 22nd January, 1982, at about 3 a.m. four persons were seen coming from the said of IndoPakistan border. They were carrying something on their heads. The petitioner was one of them. They were challenged at which one of them fired with a 12 bore gun and the other with `303 rifle''. Sadhu Ram Assistant SubInspector returned fire, at which all those persons started running back. Puran Singh petitioner was apprehended at a distance of 200 years and 10 kgs. of opium was recovered from him. A sample was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical examination. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, the sample contained morphine.

In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitionr denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. According to him, he was taken away from his village and the opium was foisted on him. In defence, he examined Kashmir Singh Sarpanch DW1 and Niranjan Singh PW2. Both of them supported the version as given by the petitioner. PW 3 is Darshan Singh Constable.

After from the fact that no independent witness was joined by the police in the nakabandi, the fact remans that inspite of the fact that both the sides fired at each other nobody has injured. DW3 Darshan Singh Constable has stated that at the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Moharir at Police Station, Mamdot. He brought the roznamcha of 22nd January, 1982, and register No. 16. According to the roznamcha, Sub Inspector Mithan Singh and some other police officials are shown to have gone for patrolling. However, in register No. 16, there was no entry that any round was fired by Assistant SubInspector Sadhu Ram or any empty was deposited as required by the rules. So, the plea of the petitioner that this encounter story has been conducted finds support from the documentary evidence produced by DW3. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case against the petitioner stands proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently the petitioner is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT accordingly.