STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURMEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case which led to the filing of this appeal are that on 22-1-1983 ASI Rajinder Pal of Police Station Subhanpur was holding a picket near the Bridge on the G.T. Road close to Bus Stand, Subhanpur. Gurmej Singh, accused respondent, came there from the side of Amritsar on a motor-cycle and on suspicion he was stopped. He was carrying three Cans which were tied with the carrier of motor-cycle No. PBJ 4027. The cans were found to contain illicit liquor. Sample was taken from each can. The rest of liquor was measured and it was found to be 25 bottles in every can. The samples and the cans containing illicit liquor were scaled and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. A case was got registered against the respondent and the case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable. Subsequently, the samples were got analysed from the Chemical Examiner, who reported that the contents of the samples constituted illicit liquor.

(2.) GURMEJ Singh, accused - respondent, was tried for an offence under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act by Shri N.D. Bhatara. During the trial, the contention of the respondent was that he was falsely involved in the case and no illicit liquor was recovered from his possession. On 21.1.1983 he was going from his village to Jalandhar for getting prepared a duplicate certificate of his motor-cycle as the original had been lost, when he was intercepted by the Police near Subhanpur Chowk. He was asked to show the papers but he told that he had lost the papers regarding which he had lodged a report a Police Station Baba Bakala. The police officials removed his wrist watch and deprived him of Rs. 1042/- which were in his possession and involved him in this case.

(3.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellant contended that the case of the prosecution was supported by ASI Rajinder Pal and Constable Tarlok Singh. The Police Party was holding a picket when the respondent came from the side of Amritsar and he was stopped and checked which led to the recovery of large quantity of illicit liquor from his possession. Both the police officials had no ill-will or grudge against the respondent so as to involve him in a false case. Their testimony was to be treated at par with the testimony of any other witness and the principle that a person acts honestly applies in the case of a Police Officer as in the case of other persons. The contention of the learned Counsel however, cannot be accepted in view of the various circumstances of the case especially keeping in view the defence set up by the respondent. It has come in evidence that the place where the police party was holding a picket was not a lonely place, but about 20 shops were situated close by. There was lot of traffic on the road. A constable was deputed to bring a bucket and a bottle with which the liquor was measured. There was, thus, ample opportunity for the Investigating Officer to join independent witnesses but he did not make any endeavour to associate some persons who could witness recovery. The police partly was holding a picket in order to check crime and the Investigating Officer could very well assume that he was likely to come across some persons carrying contraband articles, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to call some witnesses before holding the picket. Mere statements of two police officials were not sufficient to maintain conviction of the respondent. The demanding degree of proof traditionally required in a criminal case and the devaluation suffered by a witness who is naturally involved in the fruits of his investigative efforts suggests the legitimate search for corroboration from any independent or unfaitering source, the human or circumstantial to carry conviction in the mind of the Court which is tacking in the present case. The learned lower Appellate Court, therefore, was justified in recording acquittal of the respondent and restoring the motor-cycle to. him. The findings to that effect are affirmed.