STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. UDHEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Udhey Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for commission of an offence under Section 9 of Opium Act, 1878. He went in appeal which was accepted by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 15.2.1991 and he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence this appeal by the State of Punjab.

(2.) MR . Bhandari, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, has argued that the Appellate Court had erred while reversing the well founded judgment of the trial Court. He, by referring to the evidence on record, has stated that recovery of 4 kilograms and 500 grams as also 25 kilograms and 700 grams of opium from the possession of the respondent was proved on the record. He, in that regard, referred to the statements of PW-1 HC Kishan Avtar and PW-2 Inspector Gurmeet Singh. Counsel has also contended that the Appellate Court had wrongly relied upon very unconvincing evidence which was led in defence. Counsel has further contended that since there was mis-reading of evidence on the part of Appellate Court, judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside and that of the trial Court to be restored. In the end, he has prayed that the appeal be accepted.

(3.) IT is apparent from the record that the trial Court has based the conviction of the respondent only on the statements of official witnesses. It is also apparent from the reading of their statements that there existed discrepancies regarding the recovery etc. It has also come on record that no intimation/ruqqa was sent by Investigating Officer Gurdial Singh to the police station regarding recovery of 25 Kilograms 700 grams of opium. It was case of the prosecution that the respondent was driving a truck at the time when 4 Kilogram and 500 grams of opium was recovered from the back side of driver's seat. Appellate Court had found, as a matter of fact, that no attempt was made to recover the driving licence of the respondent and as such his statement that he even did not know driving of truck had gone unrebutted. Appellate Court had also come to the conclusion that the defence version was more probable as compared to the prosecution story. A perusal of records clearly indicates that the respondent/accused had produced as many as eight witnesses in defence to prove that the police officials were inimical towards him. It had been proved on record that the respondent/accused was a partner in a liquor vend at village Cheema. Earlier, one of the partners was involved in a false case by the police. Ultimately, on the complaint of respondent/accused, that FIR was cancelled. It had also been proved on record that the police officials of Police Station Tapa were annoyed with the respondent/accused for not supplying liquor to them, free of cost. Lengthy cross-examination of defence witnesses failed to shatter their testimony which, the Appellate Court had found more reliable and this Court feels that the conclusion, to that extent, was perfectly justified.