PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Chameli Devi Vs. State 1993 JCC 293 and Mool Chand Vs. State (2) Delhi Lawyers 14 it was held by this court that if the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short C.F.S.L.) form is neither deposited in the Malkhana nor sent to the C.F.S.L. alongwith the sample, it would entitle the accused the benefit of doubt and acquittal. In Mool Chand;s case, referred to above, the learned single judge had placed reliance on two judgements namely Lachho Devi Vs. State 1990 (2) CC Cases 395 and Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1990 (2) CC cases 314.

(2.) In the present case also which relates to the recovery of Poppy had powder, though it is in evidence that the C.F.S.L. form was filled in, there is nothing on the record to show that the said Form was deposited with teh Moharrar, Malkhana or was taken to the C.F.S.L. alongwith the sample parcel. In this respect reference may particularly be made to the statement of Head Constable Chander Pal Singh (Public Witness - 3) who at the relevent time was posted as Moharrar malkhana and to the statement of Constable Vijender Singh, who has allegedly taken the sample parcel to the C.F.S.L. None of them has deposed about the Form having been deposited in the Malkhana or having been taken to the C.F.S.L. Since the dictum of the Judgments referred to above is clear, the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt and acquittal on this short ground alone.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the State that as the seal after use had been handed over to a witness from the public this is itself should be taken as sufficient safeguard. I wish it could be so. Undoubtedly the prosecution has produced one Amrit Lal, a witness from the public and it is stated that the seal after use had been handed over to him, it appears from the evidence that this gentleman is a stock witness and is at the beck and call of the police. His statement fails to inspire any confidence.