NAIB DIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Magistrate dated April 28, 1988 holding petitioner guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of one year as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to further undergo RI for two months. On an appeal, filed by the petitioner, even though the order of conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court, sentence was reduced to six months vide order dated December 6, 1988.

(2.) There is no need at all to go into the details of this case inasmuch as it has remained undisputed during the course of arguments before this Court that affidavits of police officials, who had handled the opium and taken the same to Chemical Examiner, even though filed in Court, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine those, who had filed their affidavits. In other words, they were not tendered for cross-examination. Further, it has remained undisputed that affidavits of these witnesses were not even put to petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that even the affidavits have not been verified in accordance with law. The effect of giving no chance to the accused to cross-examine the police officials, who might have tendered their affidavits pertaining to link evidence and further not putting to the petitioner the said affidavits in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been held to be fatal by this Court in Zora Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 4 RCR(Cri) 805 which was followed in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 3 RCR(Cri) 429.

(3.) In view of the above, there is no choice but for to allow this revision and set aside the orders passed by the Court below. So ordered.