State of Punjab vs Bhola Singh

Amarjeet Choudhary, J.—Bhola Singh accused was sent up for trial on the charge u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for having been found in possession of 500 gms. of opium.

The accused was charge-sheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.04.1990, A.S.I. Jagtar Singh along with Head Constable Paramjit Singh, Constable Bhajan Singh and P.H.G. Bohar Singh was on patrol duty on Jaitu-Bhatinda road. When the patrol party reached on minor bridge in the area of Jaitu, Bhola Singh accused came from the other side with a Jhola in his right hand. On seeing the police party. The accused retraced his steps and started running. On suspicion, he was apprehended. The accused was told that if he wanted, he could be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for search but the accused refused. The accused offered to be searched by A.S.I. Jagtar Singh. On search, 500 grams of opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the Jhola. 10 grams of opium was taken as a sample which was put in an empty match box. Remaining opium was put in a tin. The parcels of sample and remaining opium were sealed with the seal bearing impression J.S. Seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Paramjit Singh. Both these parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PC. Ruqa Exhibit PB was sent to the Police Station for the registration of a case against the accused on the basis of which formal first information report Exhibit PA u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was recorded against the accused. Rough site plan Exhibit PD of the place of recovery was prepared with correct marginal notes.

After the completion of investigation the accused was challaned and sent up for trial.

At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1. Pirthi Singh. Sub Inspector P.W.2 A.S.I. Jagtar Singh and P.W. 4 Head Constable Paramjit Singh.

When examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Proceure the accused took up following pleas:

It is a false case. P. Ws. are deposing falsely. I had been taken from my house a day earlier. My sister-in-law Smt. Milkho sent telegram to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. I am innocent.

The accused examined D.W. 1 Sat Pal, Ahmad in his defence.

After the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, after hearing arguments of both sides and perusing the paper book, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him.

Feeling aggrieved against the acquittal of the accused, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal.

We have heard Mr. Randhir Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the paper book.

The recovery from the accused, in this case, is alleged to have taken place near a minor bridge on Jaitu-Bhatinda National Highway. It has come in the evidence of Head Constable Paramjit Singh that there was a Spinning Mill adjoining the canal minor where the recovery from the. Accused was affected. Head Constable Paramjit Singh also candidly admitted that the Octroi Post was at a distance of about 100 yards from the gate of Spinning Mill and that there was a weighing bridge opposite the Octroi Post. All this goes to show that the police party had ample opportunity to join independent witnesses in the raiding party but it has miserably failed to do so. No plausible explanation has been put forth for not doing so. The Investigating Officer was conscious of the fact that the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was punishable with minimum ten years'' imprisonment and fine of Rupees one lac. Keeping this fact in view, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to call some public man to witness the recovery, particularly when the police party remained at the spot for about three hours. It is also not believable that during the period of three hours, nobody passed by the side of the place of recovery. All this creates a serious doubt about the genuineness of prosecution case.

Otherwise also, the law is well-settled that unless the judgment of the trial court is erroneous, perverse or there is misreading of evidence, the High Court will not upset the findings of acquittal. Reference in this regard can well be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Joshu Khan Vs. State of Assam, , wherein the Supreme Court while answering a similar question held:

Thus, even if the High Court did not agree with the view taken by the Judge, that was no ground to reverse the order of acquittal.

same question was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mahmood A. Malek Vs. State of Gujarat, . The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of reversing the judgments of acquittal without valid reasons and held:

The trial court has given convincing reasons as to why the evidence of the patch witness cannot be accepted. In reversing the order of acquittal the High Court must find sufficient grounds for holding that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial courts is unsupportable.

Similarly in the case of Tota Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, , the law laid was reiterated and it was held:

This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the appellate court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The Jurisdiction of the appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.

More, recently the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, , held:

Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demean our of witnesses and interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived, the provision does not inhibit any restriction of limitation. Prudence demands restriction on mere perceptibility or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.

Keeping in view the above said settled principles one can revert back to the facts already mentioned above. The learned trial court appreciated the evidence, took the same into consideration and thereafter it arrived at a conclusion. It cannot be said that appreciation of evidence was uncalled for and there, was misreading of evidence. The findings were not perverse. Therefore, there is no ground to upset the said findings or to the state that High Court can interfere in the judgment of acquittal.

For these reasons, the appeal being without merit must fail and is dismissed.