DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . According to the prosecution, on 31.10.1993, 500 grams of opium was recovered from the possession of the accused by SHO Parshotam Singh of PS Mandi Gobindgarh. According to the prosecution, this recovery was witnessed by DSP Gurmit Singh and one Malkiat Singh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this recovery did not take place in the presence of Malkiat Singh PW as if this recovery had taken place in this presence, seal after use, in all probability, would have been handed over to him, whereas it was allegedly handed over to ASI Dharam Dev. He further submits that if the presence of Malkiat Singh PW at the spot is doubtful where is the assurance that this recovery was witnessed by DSP Shri Gurmit Singh who is circle DSP of PS Mandi Gobindgarh and the recovery rests upon the statements of SHO Purshotam Singh, DSP Gurmit Singh etc. He submits that the court may not find it possible to sentence the accused to 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lac in the minimum on the testimony of DSP Gurmit Singh, SI Purshotam Singh, SHO PS Mandi Gobindgarh and Malkiat Singh PW whose presence is doubtful. He has drawn my attention to Hem Raj v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 796 where bail was allowed to the accused, Hem Raj was allowed bail as seal after use was not delivered to independent witness Gurbachan Singh, Chowkidar but was entrusted to HC Balraj Singh. So, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. Application allowed.