AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amrik Singh petitioner was convicted under 5. 9 of the Opium Act for having got recovered 65 kgs. of opium from the specified place of concealment and was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira on 21st of March 1979. On appeal, the conviction of the petitioner was maintained but his sentence was reduced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine was reduced to Rs. 3000/- by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ferozepur, by his judgment dated August 19,1980. The petitioner has now come up in revision.

(2.) The prosecution case is a typical one of recovery at the instance of the accused. It is alleged that on August 18, 1976, at about 6 a.m., Sub-Inspector Gurchetan Singh received secret information that Amrik Singh accused was keeping opium in his house at village Ghuduwala. The Sub-Inspector alongwith the members of the police party reached village Ghuduwala and after joining Sohan Singh, Bhora Singh and Waryam Singh raided the house of the accused, who was then present at his house. He was taken into custody and on interrogation by the Sub-Inspector, he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 4 packets and a bundle containing opium which were lying burned near the northern wall of his house. The opium weighed 65 kgs. in all. After completing the formalities, all the five samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. They were found to be of opium vide report, Exhibit P. E. The prosecution case primarily rested on the testimony of Sub-Inspector Gurchetan Singh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Lachman Singh. The accused denied the prosecutions allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. Raj Kumar was, however, examined in defence.

(3.) The less it is said about the recovery of incriminating article from the petitioner, the better it would be Sub- Inspector Gurchetan Singh interrogated the petitioner in the presence of Sohan Singh, Bhora Singh and Waryam Singh and the petitioner was stated to have made the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of opium from the specified place of concealment. It is no longer a secret that the police had been making indiscriminate use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and as such, confidence of the Courts in the matters relating to making disclosure statement by an accused and discovery of incriminating article in consequence thereof, has been considerably shaken. Therefore, a very strong proof of highest standard is insisted upon, for finding that an accused did suffer disclosure statement and incriminating article was discovered in consequence thereof. Sub-Inspector Gurchetan Singh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Lachhman Singh being Investigating Officers may be subconsciously - interested in the case. The aforesaid 3 eyewitnesses joined by the police who allegedly witnessed the recovery of opium, have been withheld by the prosecution. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the officials witness examined by the prosecution are of the requisite standard on the basis of which it can be safely held that the petitioner had suffered disclosure statement attributed to him, much less that the incriminating article had been discovered in consequence of his disclosure statement. Therefore, firstly the evidence respecting discovery of the incriminating article inconsequence of the disclosure statement attributed to the petitioner is not dependable and secondly, the discovery does not advance the prosecution case because the testimony of the two official witnesses being discrepant cannot be accepted as reliable. Sub-Inspector Gurchetan Singh stated that the disclosure statement, the recovery memo and other papers were not prepared by him but were prepared by Assistant Sub-Inspector Lachhman Singh. But according to Lachhman Singh, the papers were not prepared by him but wife prepared by Sub-Inspector Gurchetan Singh.