Ravel Singh vs State of U.T.Chandigarh

Ujagar Singh, J.

Ravel Singh petitioner has come up in this Court to challenge his conviction and sentence under Section 9 of the Opium Act through this revision petition. The learned trial Magistrate imposed a sentence of the year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The lower appellate Court confirmed the aforesaid conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 9 months while maintaining the fine.

Briefly the facts are that on 13th February, 1981, S.I. Subhash Chander Abrol along with other police officials was present at Dhanas bridge for the purpose of patrol duty. One Gurcharan Singh s/o Shankar Singh and Amarjit Singh were also with them. They saw the petitioner carrying a bag in his right hand coming from Chandigarh side and on seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to slip away. He was apprehended and on search, 8 kg. of opium wrapped in a polythene paper was recovered from the said bag. The Sub Inspector took sample out of the same and sealed while the remaining opium was sealed in a separate parcel. The seal, after use according to the prosecution, was handed over to Shri Gurcharan Singh PW. As the petitioner could not produce any permit or licence for the possession of this contraband article, first information report was got recorded and the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner and on his report, the petitioner was challaned.

After framing the charge the prosecution examined PW 1 Sat Pal constable, PW 2 Amarjit Singh son of Dharam Singh, PW 3 Bhagwan Dass Inspector, PW 4 ASI Mohinder Singh PW 5 Gurcharan Singh son of Shankar Singh and PW 6 Subhash Chander Inspector PW Harcharan Singh, ASI was given up as unnecessary and after tendering into evidence the affidavits of constable Satpal, Nafe Singh HCMM, Kaur Singh, Laboratory Technician, Primary Health Centre as Exhibits PA, PB and PF respectively and the report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit PE, the prosecution closed its case.

P.W. 1 Satpal, while cross examined, stated that on 24.2.1981, he had taken the sample of Sector 18, (thereby he means, Chandigarh) for test but it was not deposited there. The officials of Sector 18 told him that he should take the sample to Sector 11 and along with other two samples, he had deposited this sample. This witness has contradicted his own affidavit, Exhibit PA, wherein he had stated that he was given the sample by MHC Nafe Singh on 24.2.1981 of depositing the same in the Chemical laboratory, after getting docket from the Excise office. He further stated that the required docket could not be obtained on 24.2.1981 and the same day, he deposited the sample back with MHC and again on 27.2.1981 the said sample was deposited by him with the Food Drugs and Excise Laboratory, Sector 11, Chandigarh. In this respect, affidavit Exhibit PA is corroborated by the affidavit of Nafe Singh MHC, Exhibit PB. Thus, the version given in the two affidavits, Exhibits PA and PB, is totally falsified by the statement of PW 1 Satpal in his crossexamination. According to the affidavits Exhibits PA and PB the sample could not be deposited on 24.2.1981 and was deposited only on 27.2.1981 and according to his statement in crossexamination, the sample was deposited on 24.2.1981 itself. If the report Exhibit PE given by the public Analyst cumAssistant Chemical Examiner is considered, the sample was sent by the Excise Inspector through his No. 383 dated 24.2.1981 and this falsifies both the affidavits Exhibits PA and PB wherein it is stated that on 24.2.1981, the docket from the Excise office could not prepared and, therefore, this sample was deposited back in the police Malkhana. Keeping in view these two versions, it is difficult to rely upon either of them Kaur Singh, whose affidavit (Exhibit PF) has been placed on the record, states therein that he received the sample on 27.2.1981 when he was posted in the Punjab State Food Drugs and Excise Laboratory. Thus, this most important link evidence cannot be relied upon especially in view of the fact that the docket for sending the sample was prepared on 24.2.1981 by the Excise Inspector and the reasons given by PW 1 Satpal Constable and Nafe Singh, MHC that the docket could not be prepared on that day, are false.

Apart from the above discussed fact, and a most important discrepancy, the affidavits Exhibits PA and PB are also not verified according to law and the rules framed by this Court. The verification on these affidavits reads as under :

"I have correctly given my above statement, according to my knowledge and belief while conscious and neither anything has been concealed nor added beyond the facts therein."

This verification is not correct as to make these affidavits (Exhibits PA and PB) admissible in evidence. The verification on affidavit Exhibit PF is also defective in as much as it has been verified as correct and true only. Therefore, Exhibit PF being defective, cannot be looked into evidence. Excluding these affidavits read with the statement of PW 1 Satpal Constable, it cannot be said that the sample which was sent for test was the same, which was tested and for which report Exhibit PE has been sent.

The petitioner examined DW 1 Paramjit Singh, DW 2 Balwant Singh and also tendered in evidence certified copies Exhibits D. 1 to D. 10 but this evidence in defence is not very relevant.

The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have not minutely gone into the affidavits and relied upon the same for coming to the conclusion of the petitioner''s being guilty and with this conclusion, the petitioner has been convicted but these affidavits are of no value as stated above.

Keeping in view the observations made above, this petition is accepted, the judgment of the trial Court as well as that of the appellate Court are set aside and the petitioner is hereby acquitted of all the charges.