WARYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WARYAM Singh was prosecuted under section 9 of the Opium Act and was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, vide his order dated March 19, 1985, to two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for nine months. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated May 17, 1985, maintained the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence to R.I to one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default or payment of fine further R.I. for three months. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

(3.) THE prosecution is dependent upon the testimony of two official witnesses i.e. a Head Constable and a Constable. Admittedly, no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery at any stage of the case. Constable Baldev Raj P.W. I has stated that the police party had passed through Adda Harike and 2/3 shops were open. HC Ajit Singh P.W. 2 has admitted that certain public men did pass by the side of the party, but none was joined. This case is dependent upon the testimony of two official witnesses only. No doubt, official witnesses cannot be discarded on the sole ground that they are officials and need corroboration. Every Indian citizen is expected to be independent and this principle will equally apply to police officials. But when the prosecution is dependent upon the testimony of official witnesses, their rank and status in the Department will also have some bearing on their independence. In this case, the PWs. are Head Constable and a Constable. Admittedly, independent witnesses were available, but they not joined. Without casting any aspersion on the police officials, I do not think it will be safe to accept the prosecution case when it is supported by two police officials of very junior rank. It would have been certainly, better if the investigating agency had joined some public men in the investigation of the case. No cogent explanation has been furnished as to why none was joined. The learned counsel hits brought to my notice that even there was a defect in the sample as sample sent for examination was of illicit liquor and the article recovered was of opium. Without going into the merits of this contention, I accept this revision on the short ground that the prosecution is dependent on the official witnesses alone and no explanation is forth coming as to way no independent witness was joined and acquit the petitioner of the change. His conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below is set aside. Revision allowed.