HARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision arises out of the conviction and sentence under section 9 of the Opium Act. The petitioner was arrested on the railway platform, Ambala Cant. at about 3.35 A.M. on 10th October, 1976 by S.I. Katasi Ram P. W. 1 who was accompanied by other police officials. The petitioner was carrying a hand bag containing 6.500 KG of Opium. The petitioner was tried and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial of the petitioner started on 10th January, 1977 when the challan was put in. It took over more than seven years and a half to complete the trial. Appeal against his conviction and sentence was decided on 26th February. 1985.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the affidavit of Karan Singh A.S.I. is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 12-B of Volume IV or the High Court Rules and Orders has also prescribed the form of affidavit and this affidavit Exhibit P.X. does not conform to those requirements. The verification on the affidavit of Karan Singh A.S.I., when translated, reads as follows: TIJ Karan Singh, A.S.I., hereby solemnly affirm and state that I have heard my above statement while in sound disposing mind & the same is verified on my knowledge and information. Nothing has been concealed therefrom. The verification of the affidavit is required to he either on knowledge or on Information and it should show specifically which part of the affidavit is verified on dependents knowledge and which part is verified all deponents information. The whole of the affidavit in this case has been verified on the basis of knowledge and information. Such affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. In support, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pratap Singh1 is referred to. Excluding the affidavit of Karan Singh, A.S.I. Exhibit P.X., we are left with no evidence as to when this sample of the opium was deposited in the Malkhana and when it was sent for chemical analysis. Such an important link of evidence is missing and exclusion of this affidavit does to the root of the case the petitioner is entitled to benefit of the doubt Oil this score.

(3.) This petition is therefore, accepted. The orders of the lower Courts are set aside and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge.