ROOP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ROOP Chand petitioner was convicted by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment thereof, to further R.I. for one month. His appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Karnal. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he has preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20th February, 1985 the petitioner was intercepted by the police party headed by Ravinder Kumar Head Constable on the bridge of Yamuna river near Sithana village and he was found in possession of one canny containing liquor equivalent to 5-1/4 bottles. After taking a nip as sample therefrom the sample and the remainder were sealed. The same was found of illicit liquor by the Chemical Examiner. After completion of all formalities regarding investigations, the petitioner was challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above.

(3.) IT is well settled principle of law that the Investigating Agency should joint independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution casee. In the present case also admittedly the independently witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to joint. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to joint the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have noted down their names and addresses etc. and would have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together makes the prosecution case highly doubtful.