MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice to the State of Haryana. On the asking of this Court, Shri J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

(2.) With the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 7th Dec., 1996 has been gone through. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, decided to frame the charge against Mangal Singh petitioner by reasons contained in paras Nos 4 and 5 of the impugned order, which are reproduced as under:-

(3.) Thus from the above affidavit, it becomes apparent that truck in which 100 bags of poppy husk were being transported was owned by accused Mangal Singh. Sucha Singh has stated that it was Mangal Singh, who had escaped from the truck on seeing the police party. Since it was night, so he could not be apprehended. This evidence is sufficient to show prima facie involvement of Mangal Singh in the crime. Hence, from the report submitted under Sec. 173 Cr. P.C. by the police, a prima facie commission of offence punishable under Sec. 15 N.D.P.S. Act is made out against Sucha Singh, Angrej Singh and Mangal Singh and as such they be charged sheeted accordingly. However, for the reasons given about of prima facie commission of offence punishable under Sec. 15 NDPS Act is made out against Malkiat Singh and, hence he stands discharged under this F.I.R." perusal of the above would show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, has adopted double yardstick while framing the charge against the petitioner. Admittedly petitioner Mangal Singh is being arrayed by the Police on the basis of the confessional statement of his co-accused Sucha Singh. It is a settled law that the statement of a co-accused is not substantive piece of evidence and on the basis of such evidence, a person cannot be charge-sheeted. The trial Court rightly adopted this principle of law in order to discharge the accused Malkiat Singh, but has decided to proceed against the petitioner primarily on the ground that he was the owner of the truck and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected some evidence against him.