TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ -, in default R.I. for six months under section 9 of the Opium Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, vide his order dated 24.4.1980. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on receipt of secret information, Swaran Singh, Inspector, PW 3 held a Nakabandi near chowk Hussainpur on 26.11.1976 when at about 12 : 30 p.m. the petitioner came from the side of Jullundur with a suit case in his hand. He was apprehended and on search ten kilograms of opium was recovered from him. The samples were sent for chemical examination and as per report of the Chemical Examiner, the sample contained opium. Out of the witnesses of recovery H.C. Kartar Singh has not supported the version of the prosecution. He was declared hostile and subjected to cross -examination -by the Public Prosecutor. Mool Raj was given up by the prosecution and examined as D.W. 1. He fully supported the version given by the petitioner. Although Kishan Lal PW 1 denied that he ever appeared as PW in police case, but the petitioner produced in defence copies of his statement in some other cases which are marked 'A', 'B' and 'C'. He also produced on record certified copies of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Exhibits DB and DC which also go to show that Kishan Lal PW has been appearing as witness for the prosecution in police cases. This witness not only has been proved to be a false but has also been proved to be a police witness who is always at their beck and call. The statement of Inspector Swaran Singh PW has been contradicted by Kartar Singh HC, PW and Mool Raj DW who were admittedly present in the raid party. His conduct in joining Kishan Lal who is at the beck and call of the police also throws doubt on the bonafides of the Inspector. In view of the fact that Kishan Lal PW is a witness who cannot be relied upon and the statement of Inspector Swaran Singh PW has been contradicted by both the witnesses, namely HC Kartar Singh PW and Mool Raj DW, I think it would not be safe to maintain the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Consequently, I give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charge. Fine, if paid, would be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.