Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 409 (PNJ)

Umed Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.10.1987, pased by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners, under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.3.1984, ASI Wazir Singh accompanied by Constables Ishwar Singh, Satbir Singh and Om Parkash was returning from Ukalana for going to Narnaud, after investigating a case under Section 302/201, Indian Penal Code. As the police party was present at Bus Stand, Bhaklana, a motor cycle No. CHH 1882 was spotted coming from the side of Khauda Kheri. This motor cycle was being driven by accused Umed Singh while accused Hawa Singh was sitting on the pillion. The motor cycle was signalled to stop. It was cheked and from its tool box, charas wrapped in a piece of cloth was recovered. On weighment, it was found to be 1 kg. Accused could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of charas. 20 Grams of charas was taken out as a sample and sealed. The remaining charas was separaely sealed in a tin, Ex. P-1. The seal after use was given to Constable Satbir Singh. Both the sealed paracels were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. Motor cycle was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PC, along with its registration copy. Ruqa, Ex. PB, was sent to the police station for the registration of a case, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PB/1, was recorded. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana and the sealed sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. After the receipt of the report, Ex. PX, the challan was presented against the accused under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the Sate of Haryana. 3. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and framed a charge under the said section against the petitioners. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Wazir Singh and Constable Satbir Singh. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the report of the chemical examiner and the affidavits of the formal witnesses. 5. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Wazir Singh and Constable Satbir Singh. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the report of the chemical examiner and the affidavits of the formal witnesses. 5. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioners denied those circumstances and stated that they have been falsely implicated. According to Umed Singh, he had purchased the motor cycle from Raj Kumar but there was some dispute regarding its consideration and Hawa Singh stood surety for him but later on Raj Kumar colluded with the police and falsely implicated them in the case. No witnesses was examined in defence. 6. The learned Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. They filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 8.10.1987 and in this manner, the present revision. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgments and the grounds of revision and am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below so far as the conviction aspect is concerned. The story of the prosecution has been proved from the statements of both the PWs. Their statements are further corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner. The sole point which survives for determination is what sentence should be awarded to the petitioners, after a lapse of 16 years as the recovery was effected in the year 1984. Probation was denied to the petitioners by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that a huge quantity of charas has been recovered from them. In my opinion too the petitioners are not entitled to be released on probation. However, the sentence which has already been undergone by them shall suffice the purpose of interest of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone. 8. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Revision dismissed.