TEHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On December 29, 1982, A.S.I. Balbir Singh of Police Station Mehna was patrolling the area alongwith the other police officials. When the police party reached near the Canal Bridge within the revenue jurisdiction of village Takhan Wadh, Tehal Singh was seen carrying a gunny bag on his head, coming from the side of village Dhulkot. His behaviour aroused suspicion as he tried to slip away, so he was apprehended and gunny bag was searched, which was found containing 40 Kgs. of poppy heads. Sample was separated out of the contents of the bag and was sealed in a parcel. Tehal Singh was interrogated when he disclosed that he had kept concealed. 11 bags containing poppy heads in a room of his house where he had stored wheat chaff. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing in pursuance of which he got recovered 11 bags each containing 40 Kgs. of poppy heads. Sample was separated from each bag and the same were seized vide a recovery memo. After getting the samples analysed from the Chemical Examiner, chargesheet was presented in Court.

(2.) Tehal Singh, when charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement, he denied that any recovery was effected from him and stated that he was falsely involved in the case. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Moga who tried him, found that the charge against him was proved. He held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo R.I. for 9 months. Aggrieved by this judgment dated January 15, 1986. Tehal Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridkot. This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated May 28, 1986 whereby conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner were maintained.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the case of the prosecution was supported by only two official witnesses namely, A.S.I. Balbir Singh and Constable Gurpiar Singh. The first recovery was alleged to have been effected near Canal Bridge, which was a thorough fare but no independent witness was associated to witness the recovery. The second recovery was effected in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner from his house but neither at the time of recording his statement, nor at the time of effecting recovery, any independent witness was joined. It was incumbent upon the Police officials to have called some persons from the public to witness interrogation of the petitioner as well as to the recovery alleged to have been effected from his house which was situated in an inhabited area. Non-joining of independent witness itself rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. I find this contention of the learned counsel to be tenable. In the instant case, recoveries were effected on personal search as well as in pursuance of a disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner but at no stage, the Investigating Officer tried to take anyone into confidence. It cannot be accepted that from the whole of the village, the Investigating Officer was not in a position to associate a single independent witness with him. The statements of the police officials are also discrepant. They made contradictory statements with respect to the situation of the house of the petitioner which lead to an inference that in fact, they had not been to his house and the recovery was not effected in the manner alleged by the prosecution.