LACHHMAN SINGH AND KARTAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order deals with criminal Revisions Nos. 290, 292, 293, 294 and 296 of 1949. The cases have been referred to a Division Bench by Kapur J. as he experienced some difficulty in deciding the nature of possession involved in these cases. The petitions have arisen out of five different exercise cases in which the allegation of the prosecution was that the accused person (in each case) was in possession of a quantity of lahan. In all' cases the lahan had been buried by the accused person. In two cases the lahan was buried out in the fields and in three cases the lahan was buried in a kotha. The point raised before Kapur J. was whether in any of these cases the accused person could be said to have been in possession of lahan which is a contraband article the possession of which is forbidden by law. Kapur J. referred to the definition of possession as given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and then concluded as follows:

(2.) I find it difficult to lay down a cut and dry principle with regard to the question of possession. The definition of possession as quoted in the referring order of my learned brother Kapur J. is as follows:

(3.) CONSIDERING first the case of Lachhman Singh (Criminal Revision No. 290 of 1949) the evidence is that Lachhman Singh made a statement to the effect that he had buried lahan in a field. He then took the raiding party to the spot near the boundary of his field. The spot itself does not lie in his own field but is situated in the field of some one else. From this spot two pitchers of lahan were recovered. In this case, therefore, we have the statement of Lachhman Singh that he had buried the lahan, together with the factum of the recovery of lahan from a field which does not belong to him. Together with these facts we must also take into consideration the circumstance that in this particular village distillation of illicit liquor on a large scale was going on and many persons were alleged to be distilling liquor. An excise raiding party found many pitchers of lahan and the recoveries were made from various places. All the five petitioners before us belong to the same village and were apprehended on the same day. Therefore it is clear that in this village of Pholriwala several persona were distilling liquor and the fact was known to almost all the villagers. Therefore it is possible, nay probable, that Lachhman Singh also knew where the various pitchers of lahan had been concealed by the villagers and it may well be that he gave information relating to the pitchers of lahan belonging to some one else and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that Lachhman Singh was in possession of this lahan. Therefore it cannot be said that the charge under Section 61 (1) has been brought home to him. His petition, therefore, must be allowed and he must be acquitted.