Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

In these two Criminal Revision Nos. 492 and 493 of 1985, the petitioner has concurrently been convicted by the two Courts for two different offences, i.e., (i) under section 13 of the East Punjab Drugs Control Act, to a sentence of six months and (ii) under section 9 of the Opium Act. to a sentence of two years'' rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Its. 2000/ in default of payment of which to a further R.I. for three months, respectively. What has been found established against him in these two cases is that when on July 18, 1980, S.I. Balwant Singh, ASI Piara Singh and Constable Balbir Singh along with two other police officials were on patrol duty, they saw the petitioner standing with an attache case in his hand near the canal minor bridge in the area of village Matti. On seeing the police party he tried to slip away. Thus the suspicion of the police party having been aroused, he was apprehended and as a result of the search that followed, 10 kgs. of opium wrapped in a glazed paper and 5000 intoxicating tablets wrapped in another piece of glazed paper, were recovered from his attache case. The police separated, samples of both the recovered contraband articles and later got them analysed. The details of these recoveries'' as also the taking into possession of the articles though different memos prepared at the spot, are mentioned in the lower Court judgments and need not be recapitulated here. During the course of trial, the above noted version about the recoveries was duly supported by the three police officials named above. Believing their evidence the two courts, as already indicated, have recorded the conviction of the petitioner.

In both the cases his defence plea under section 313 Cr.P.C. was of complete innocence. He also maintained that these two cases were foisted on him as S.I. Balwant Singh was very much annoyed with him and his family. To establish this plea he later proved documents, i.e. Exhibit DA, a complaint filed by one Bhag Singh (stated to be the father of the petitioner) on August 18, 1980 against S.I. Balwant Singh and three constables and Exhibit DB, an order passed by the trial Magistrate summoning these persons as a result of the precharge evidence led in the complaint.

All that has been highlighted by Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner to erode the two convictions is that firstly the police party failed to join any independent witness at the time of the recovery of the contraband articles from the petitioner and secondly the defence plea is well substantiated by the contents of Exhibit DA wherein all the details disclosing a serious enmity between S.I. Balwant Singh and complainant Bhag Singh are mentioned. However, after giving my thoughtful consideration to these submissions I find no merit in the same. The defence plea has rightly been discarded by the lower Court on the ground that the complaint Exhibit DA was filed after about a month of the alleged date of commission of the offence, i.e., July 18, 1980 and at that stage it was too convenient for the complainant to level all sort of allegations, against S. I. Balwant Singh. Further by merely producing the summoning order Exhibit DB, it cannot possibly be taken that the allegations made in the complaint against Balwant Singh S.I. and others were either established or had gained any credence. What was the outcome of that complaint as a result of the trial that followed has nowhere been established on record. Above all this who is this Bhag Singh complainant is not even explained anywhere in the evidence. So for as the present cases are concerned, Bhag Singh is nobody neither the accused nor a witness.

So far as the submission with regard to the joining of any independent witness at the time of recoveries effected from the petitioner is concerned, it is patent in the light of the above narration of facts that it was just by chance that the petitioner met the police party. Otherwise also I am of the view that except in cases of houses search no law requires that the police has always to join a witness from the public who is normally styled as an independent witness while recovering any contraband article from an accused person.

Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniently and his release on probation would squarely meet the ends of justice. I find no merit in this submission.

The quantity of the contraband articles recovered establishes that the petitioner is virtually in trade and does not deserve any leniency.

No other argument having been raised, these, petitions are dismissed as totally meritless.