Tilak Raj vs The State

Bedi, J.—Tilak Raj aged about 32, resident of Amritsar was sent up for trial u/s 61(1)(a) read with section 68-A of the Punjab Excise Act for possession of four tolas of charas. He was convicted and sentenced under the above charge to two months, rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 40/- or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. His appeal to the court of session was dismissed by Shri Kartar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 10th January, 1964. The petitioner still feels dissatisfied and has approached this Court in revision.

The story for the prosecution briefly stated runs as under:

Bikramjit Singh Head Constable on receipt of information on 24th May 1963, organised a raiding party consisting of himself, Vir Singh, Mohan Lal and some other police officials and went to Khazana Gate Amritsar. They found the petitioner present there. On seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to slip away but he was secured at the spot. On a search of his person, it is alleged, four tolas of charas were recovered, sample out of it was taken and sent to the chemical examiner and in due course he found that the sample was of charas. A case against the petitioner was registered immediately on the same day and after due investigation he was sent up for trial which ended in the result above mentioned.

The prosecution examined a number of witnesses, but the most material witnesses for our purposes who were witnesses of the recovery are Bikram Singh Head Constable and Vir Singh. Amar Singh the other non-official witness who was said to be present at the time of the recovery was reported to be dead. The case, therefore, only depends on the statements of these two witnesses, namely Bikramjit Singh and Vir Singh. Vir Singh was only labourer and a man of no status. He admitted in cross-examination that he had been appearing in such cases for the police for the last couple of years or so. The learned Sessions Judge while discussing the evidence in this case found a number of discrepancies in the statements of Bikramjit Singh and Vir Singh and some of those discrepancies are to some extent material. It has been often observed by this Court that when the police officers organise reading parties, especially after receiving information, they should carry with them non-officials of some status in life and who are aligned with any party. But in spite of it, it appears that the police officers, especially the petty one''s do not care for the observations of this Court. of course, it is true that simply because a witness happens to belong to the police department or some other department, his evidence should not be rejected on that ground alone, but when other evidence could be available and the police officers only joined persons of his choice, if recovery is effected under those circumstances of some incriminating articles it becomes somewhat doubtful. The other person in this case who was joined with the raid was said to be Mohan Lal who also had been appearing in police cases before. It is true that if a person appears for the police in some cases he does not thereby necessarily become a stock witness of the police but as observed above when other witnesses could be available, there is no reason why witnesses of this nature who at least, if nothing else, can be said to be convenient witnesses for the police should joined in such raids. I, there-fore, feel that taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the recovery is proved beyond doubt. The petitioner is, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.