Sakattar Singh vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh Bains, J. (Oral)

The two revision petitions, one filed by Sakatar Singh (No. 224 of 1981) and the other filed by Ajit Singh and Puran Singh (No. 233 of 1981) shall be disposed of by this single order as these arise out of the same incident and are against the same judgment.

The petitioners were convicted in both the revision petitions by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to 15 months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal their conviction and sentence was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, hence these revisions.

Prosecution case as set up the trial was that one Gurdial Singh was the driver of truck No. P.N.P. 2607. On 4th August, 1970 he carried 117 bags of wheat in that truck. He was engaged by Dharam Paul, a Depot Holder of Qadian and the truck was loaded from a Government godown close to Octroi post, Butter. Ajit Singh and Puran Singh petitioners were present when 117 bags of wheat were loaded in the truck from the Government godown. It is alleged that when the truck was about to move for Batala Harbans Singh, Harbans Lal and Inderjit Local DepotHolders told Gurdial Singh that the wheat bags were stolen property. Thereupon Dharam Paul, DepotHolder, got down from the truck and ran away. Gurdial Singh took the truck to police post, Qadian, which was taken into possession by Sant Ram PW1, vide memo Exhibit PA under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an entry in the daily diary was recorded vide Exhibit PB.

The Police informed Karnail Singh, District Food and Supplies Controller, Gurdaspur, who in turn deputed Bulaki Ram, District Food and Supplies officer, Gurdaspur, to check the godowns. He only checked the stocks in godown No. 47, which was close to Octroi Post, Butter, on 5th August, 1970 and his report is Exhibit PW 4/Z. According to this report there was no shortage. The Controller then sent the report to Police Post, Qadian, vide his letter dated 7th August, 1970. Thereafter Chanan Singh, PW 2, took over charge from Sakatar Singh on 12th August, 1970 and then the stocks were rechecked and he found shortage of 72 bags from 34 godowns and then the case was registered at Police Station, Sadar Batala vide FIR No. 338 on 29th September, 1970.

At the trial the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations. He gave his own version, which is as follows :

"Witnesses are false. I was posted at Qadian on 30.4.1970. On 3.8.1970. I had gone to Circle Office at Gurdaspur to attend a meeting. Salaries of all the staff were received on that day. In my absence, 117 bags of wheat were taken out of godowns which were handed over to the Police on the same day. Circle office was informed about this by telephone but without caring for it, the department tried to hush up the matter of 117 bags of wheat. I had been writing to the department for the checking of godowns and to capture the theft but the department did not do any thing. They replied my letters irresponsibly and I was ordered to be transferred. No charge report of mine is with the department because I insisted that 117 bags also should be counted on which the department got me involved in this case".

Puran Singh and Ajit Singh just denied the charge, they did not give any explanation. Sakatar Singh also produced in defence DW 1 Kuldip Singh who was Nazar in the office of the District Food and Supplies Controller, Gurdaspur, who deposed that Sakatar Singh remained there on 3rd August, 1970 in his office to collect the pay packets of the employees. DW 2 is Brij Bhushan, Inspector Food and Supplies, who was directed to produce some record relating to the godown but he did not produce the same. DW 3 is Tirath Singh Senior Auditor, who deposed about the capacity of the godowns.

The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Sant Ram Constable PW 1, who took the truck as also wheat bags into possession, Chanan Singh PW 2 is Inspector, who took charge from Sakatar Singh, PW 3 Iqbal Singh was examined before the amendment of the charge. PW 4 is Karnail Singh District Food and Supplies Controller. Chanan Singh had deposed about the shortage of 72 bags, Iqbal Singh corroborated the statement of Chanan Singh as the checking was done in his presence. Karnail Singh is District Food and Supplies Controller, who ordered the checking of godowns. I am of the view that no case is made out against the petitioner. Chanan Singh PW 2 has deposed only about the shortage and also about the charge report, Exhibit PC. According to him it was written in the hand of Sakatar Singh, but this question was not put to Sakatar Singh and the report Exhibit PC was also put to him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is settled law that all the incriminating circumstances emanating from the evidence have to be put to the accused in order to afford a fair opportunity to explain the same. But for the reasons best known to it, the trial Court has not put material incriminating circumstances to the accused which came against them in evidence, including the one pointed out above. Only four or five questions were put, which did not cover all the incriminating material brought against the petitioners at the trial. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the State fairly conceded that the trial Court fell in error in not putting all the material questions to the accused, and suggested that the case may be remanded for retrial in the interest of justice. This request of the State counsel cannot be acceded to as the occurrence took place in the year 1970 and now we are in the year 1984. The petitioners have faced the ordeal of protracted trial during all these 14 years, including investigation. Their services have also been terminated. So in the interest of justice. I am of the view that it would not be fair to remand the case for retrial. In Machander v. Hyderabad State, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 792 in the similar situation it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows :

"We are not prepared to keep persons who are on trial for their lives under indefinite suspense, because trial judges omit to do their duty. Justice is not onesided. It has many facts and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detections of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go".

Apart from the above verdict of the highest Court of the land, material witnesses like Gurdial Singh driver who handed over the truck, Harbans Singh, Harbans Lal and Inderjit Depot Holders who pointed out that the wheat was stolen property have not been produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Guridal Singh was the most material witness as he was the driver of truck No. P.N.P. 2607, who took the wheat bags in the truck at the instance of Dharam Paul Depot Holder and later handed over the same to the Police. Keys of the godowns were not taken into possession, nor there is any evidence to that effect. Exhibit P.W. 4/Z is the basic document, which exonerates the petitioners from the guilt, as according to this document it was proved by the prosecution itself that there was no shortage. Then there is another document P.W. 4/C, which is a letter written by Karnail Singh P.W. 4, according to which no shortage was found in the godowns, this letter is dated 7th August, 1970. Exhibit P.W. 4/N is another letter written by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur to the District Food and Supplies Controller, Gurdaspur, that the Civil Supplies Department has failed to prove the ownership of 117 bags of wheat. This letter is also brought on record by the prosecution itself.

For the reasons recorded I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to connect the accusedpetitioners with the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the petitioners are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge against them. In the result the petitions are allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded by the Courts below are set aside.

Before parting with the judgment I am constrained to observe that the trial Court did not put all the incriminating material to the accused while examining them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is incumbent upon the trial Court to put every incriminating material to the accused so as to give an opportunity to explain the same, which the trial Court has failed to do in this case.