CHARAN SINGH ALIAS CHANNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision on behalf of Charan Singh is directed against the judgment dated November 12, 1981, of the Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing his appeal in relation to his conviction under section 9 of the Opium Act. He had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarn Taran, on January 4, 1980, and then sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The sentence had also been maintained by the Appellate Court. It was alleged against the petitioner that 4 kg of opium was recovered from his possession on July 22, 1978, near the canal bridge of village Wain Puin. the prosecution case was supported by Assistant Sub -Inspector Rajinder Singh P.W. 1 and Sub -Inspector Gurmit Singh P.W. 2.

(2.) ONE of the contentions raised in this revision appears to be that none from the office of the Chemical Examiner had been produced by the prosecution who could depose about this fact that the sample of opum while under examination was not tempered with by anybody. This question has since been decided by a Division Bench in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1982 (Bhagwan Dass v. State of Punjab) on June 22, 1982 [reported in 1982(2) CLR 270]. It has been held that the report of the Chemical Examiner has to be read as a whole, and there is a mention therein that the sample up to the time it was examined had not been tempered with.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged another point in support of the revision. The memo of recovery Exhibit PA, in addition to the witness who were examined by the prosecution has been attested by Assistant Sub -Inspector Karnail Singh of Police Station, Verowal. It was Sub -Inspector Gurmit singh PW 2 (who at the time he gave evidence had been promoted as Inspector C.I.A.) who had investigated the case. Assistant Sub -Inspector Rajinder Singh made this statement that Assistant Sub -Inspector Karnail Singh and other police officials were with him at the time of the recovery of the opium. Sub -Inspector Gurmit Singh PW 2 deposed that the whole of the party started from the police station, Veroval, on July 2, 1976, at about 8 a.m. Assistant Sub -Inspector Karnail Singh and two Constables also started with him at that very time. Constable Dhian Singh DW2 was produced for showing that it was after entering report No. 18 dated July 22, 1976, that Assistant Sub -Inspector karnail Singh left the police station at 7.30 a.m. for appearing as a prosecution witness before the Chief Judicial magistrate, Amritsar. According to the witness, Sub -Inspector Gurmit Singh got recorded report no. 15th July 23, 1976, at 2.30 a.m. showing his return to the police station. However, Assistant Sub -Inspector Karnail Singh got recorded report No. 9 dated July 23, 1976, at 7.15 p.m. wherein it was indicated that he had come back to the police station after appearing as a witness at Amritsar. All this shows that the departure of Assistant Sub -Inspector Karnail Singh from the police station and then his return back did not synchronise with the timings of the departure and return of the rest of the police party. From this kind of documentary evidence this inference can be raised that it was after the investigating officer had come back to the police station that he got added another witness in the memo, Exhibit PA, so that more evidence might be available to him in support of the prosecution case. Both the Courts below acted on this kind of surmise that after Assistant Sub -Inspector Karnail Singh had departed from the police station he may have helped in the investigation of the case and then proceeded for giving evidence. This position cannot at all be correct, as the time of the recovery is 9.40 p.m. It is also not possible that after appearing as a witness at Amritsar he thought of going to that place where the opium was expected to be recovered and there signed the memo of recovery. Had it been so he would then have returned with the rest of the policy party to the police station. I thus take this view that there is a reasonable doubt about the recovery of opium as alleged by the prosecution, and by granting the benefit of this circumstance I take the offence alleged against he petitioner to be not proved. The revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence of which he was convicted.