State of Punjab vs Leela Singh

A.L. Bahri, J. (Oral)

55 Kgs. of poppy husk were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Leela Singh by the police on October 8, 1979. After completion of the investigation, he was put up for trial. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur on January 29, 1982 acquitted the accused. Hence the State has come up in appeal.

Leela Singh was served in this appeal but nobody has come forward to represent him. Shri Kanwaljit Singh Pander, Advocate of Sangrur has filed memorandum of appearance. Actual date notice was issued to him for April 11, 1991. Even he has not come to represent the accused. We have heard DAG for the State.

Judicial Magistrate took up the view that affidavit of functionary working in the office of the Chemical Examiner was necessary to link the accused with the incriminating article. He relied upon the judgment of Single Bench in Amarjit Singh v. State of Panjab, 1981 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 170. This view is not correct. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Exhibit PD. This bears a certificate of the Chemical Examiner that seal on the exhibit was intact and agreed with the sample seal sent. In view of this certificate there was no necessity for the prosecution to produce any affidavit of the functionary of the office of the Chemical Examiner. Affidavit of Harpal Singh. Laboratory Attendant was produced with the challan but was not admitted into evidence. Such a matter was decided by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, 1982 Criminal Law Journal 1197 holding that it was not necessary to produce the evidence of functionary of the office of Chemical Examiner. Thus on that ground the judgment of the Magistrate could not be maintained.

We have gone through the record of the case and we find that the necessary link evidence is otherwise defective in law. Exhibit PE is the affidavit of MHC Darbara Singh and Exhibit PF is the affidavit of Constable Sukhdev Singh. Both the affidavits bear the verification that the contents of the affidavits were correct. It is not mentioned therein which part of the affidavit was correct according to the knowledge and which part belief. Thus the affidavits being ignored from consideration, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by connecting the incriminating article with him. Thus we find no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate. Dismissed.