PRITAM SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case briefly are as under : The petitioner was employed as a Sub -Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Khanna, and was incharge of godown No. 6. This godown, according to the record, contained 816 bags of wheat on the 8th February 1961. Lakhu Ram Chaukidar had the keys of the outer door of the godown. Shri Badri Parshad, Secretary of the Khanna, Grain Syndicate, had one key of this godown and the other key remained in the office of Shri Harbans Singh, Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies (P.W. 8). It is alleged that on 8th February 196l the petitioner obtained the key of the godown from Shri Badri Parshad on the plea that he wanted to check the stocks therein. The petitioner also got the key of the outer gate of the godown from Lakhu Ram Chaukidar (P.W. 4) telling him that he wanted to check the stocks. Lakhu Ram (P.W. 4) after handing over the key went to the bazar from where he returned after some time and saw the petitioner taking away four bags of wheat in a cart. On the 9th February 1961 Shri Balkar Singh, Fumigation Inspector, Ludhiana Circle, came to Khanna for the inspection of the Government godown. Shri Harbans Singh L.P. W. 8, also accompanied him in his official capacity. When they reached godown No. 6, Lakhu Ram Chaukidar was summoned and was told to bring the key of the main gate of the godown. Lakhu Ram did so. Then Harbans Singh took out his bunch of keys and also sent for Badri Parshad, Secretary of the Syndicate, telling him to bring the other key of the lock. Badri Parshad came and told Harbans Singh that the petitioner Pritam Singh had taken away that key from him on the 8th February 1961 and that the same was not returned by him. The petitioner was then summoned and he produced both the keys of the lock of godown No. 6. The lock was opened and on checking the stocks, instead of 816 bags of wheat 812 bags of wheat were found. Enquiries were made about the missing bags from the petitioner but he could not give any satisfactory answer. Harbans Singh then telephoned to the District Food Controller, Ludhiana, who came to the spot on the 10th February 1961 and checked the stocks. The petitioner was also present at that time. The District Food Controller made enquiries from the petitioner about the four bags of wheat which were found short, but the petitioner could not give any plausible answer, and, therefore, the matter was reported to the police on the same day in the evening.

(2.) THE petitioner was interrogated on the 11th February 1961 by the police and while in the police custody, he made the disclosure statement Exhibit P.B. to the effect that he had sold four bags of wheat to Bhajan Singh (P.W. 6) of village Rasulra and that he could get of the same recovered. This statement was witnessed by Gurcharan Singh (P.W. 2) and Harbans Singh (P.W. 8) besides the investigating officer Shri Joginder Singh (P.W. 10). He then led the investigating party to Kasulra to the house of Bhaian Singh and produced four bags of wheat bearing Government marks besides receipt Exhibit P.C., showing that the wheat in question was sold by the petitioner to Bhajan Singh of the 8th February Idol for Rs. 163/11/. The wheat as well as the receipt were taken into possession in the presence of Bachittar Singh (P.W. 5), Bhajan Singh (P.W. 6) besides the Sub -Inspector Joginder Singh (P.W. 10).

(3.) THE petitioner when examined under section 342.. Criminal Procedure Code, denied the allegations against him. He, however, admitted his signatures on the receipt Exhibit P.C. and averted that the same were obtained by the police under pressure. He denied having produced the key of the godown in question before the Sub Inspector and also disowned the disclosure statement alleged to have been made by him. He attributed this case to his enmity with Harbans Singh (P.W. 4) and and Harnek Singh (P.W. (sic)) and examined two witnesses in defence. The prosecution, on the other hand, examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of their case besides Shri Palta, D.F.S.O. Ludhiana, who was examined as C.W. 1.