INDERJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inderjeet Singh is alleged to be a muscleman engaged by M/s. Karnal Pharmacy owned by Naresh Bhardwaj and others of Village Azadpur. The prosecution version is that Inderjeet Singh was engaged by the muscleman of the said pharmacy in order to ensure the delivery of the consignments and also that the payment is promptly received for the consignments delivered. He used to accompany the driver of the vehicle in which the consignments were carried. On 4th November, 1991 it is alleged that the petitioner accompanied Shri Daya Chand the driver of the vehicle Matador No.DAE 1657 for delivering the consignment of liquor. The consignment consisting of 50 boxes of liquor was delivered to Ram Niwas Mittal of Azadpur. At that time according to the prosecution the petitioner told Mr. Mittal in the presence of Daya Chand that there was "Unnis-Bees Ki Garbar Hai" in the consignment and that he should dispose of the same quickly 31 the tame of Diwali. Mr. Mittal placed another order of 50 boxes to be delivered by 6th November. 1991. This consignment containing another 50 boxes was delivered to Ram Niwas Mittal on 6th November, 1991 by Inderjeet Singh on behalf of the owners in the vehicle driven by Daya Chand. Mr. Ram Niwas Mittal had pointed out on 6th November, 1991 that though the petitioner had told that there was a defect in the consignment but the same had been consumed by the customers.

(2.) It is in this background that the prosecution charged the petitioner under Sectior. 284/337/304 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code . The sole testimony against the petitioner of his having the knowledge that the consignment consisted of spurious liquor was that of Daya Chand. It is further the case of the petitioner that the co-accused, the grocery shop owners have already been granted bail. He accordingly applied for the bail but the same was rejected by this Court. Now in ihe present petition the petitioner has come up with fresh grounds namely that Daya Chand has stated that he never made any statement to the police implicating the petitioner. In this regard an affidavit of Daya Chand has been filed. Beside, in the enquiry being held by the Commission, Daya Chand appeared as a witness before the inquiry Judge and denied that the petitioner was having any knowledge regarding the consignment supplied on 4th or 6th November, 1991 containing "Kapur Asav". Not only Daya Chand has denied this fact, even Abdul Gafoor who appeared before the Commission denied that the petitioner was an employee of M/s. Kamal Pharmacy.

(3.) Relying on the statement of Daya Chand made in his affidavit as well as statement made before the Commission set up to enquire this matter, Mr. P.P. Grover contended that no case is made out against the petitioner because she only testimony which the prosecution was relying was that of Daya Chand. Daya Chand has categorically stated that he never made a statement implicating the petitioner. He further contended that the statement made by the witness before the Commission is relevant and is admissible before this Court and for this purpose he has placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sohanlal Pahladrai Vaid Vs. State reportcred in AIR 1965 Bombay page 1 where the incident in respect of which accused was being prosecuted in a criminal trial had been ihe subject matter of an inquiry by a Commission of inquiry appointed under the Act. It was held that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses before the Commission could be used by the defence for the purpose mentioned in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore. Mr. Grover contended that the statement made by Mr. Daya Chand before the Commission can be taken into account and in view of that statement no case is made out against the petitioner.