Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1078 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Punjab State

2002-10-16

R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 16.12.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions, Judge, Sangrur vide which the judgment of the trial Court has been confirmed. 2. It is alleged against the petitioner that he was allegedly found in possession of 5 Kg. of opium without any licence or permit. The learned trial court relied the statements of the police officials and convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated in the judgment itself. Hence, the present revision. 3. I am disposing of this revision with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 4. The solitary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no independent witness has been associated and that there is a material discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses. I am not in agreement with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The recovery stands proved from the statements of PW1 Constable Satnam Singh, PW2 HC Mahavir Singh and PW3 Dr. Tarlok Singh. The opium has also been confirmed from the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PD. The recovery is heavy and it is not believable that it has been planted upon the petitioner by the Investigating Officer from his personal resources. It has been rightly observed by the Appellate Court that it is a matter of common knowledge that people these days do not want to incur the wrath of enmity and do not want to come forward to support the prosecution case. The public officials have no axe to grind against the petitioner. Even the discrepancy which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be held to be material. Every discrepancy is not to be considered as fatal for the prosecution. Only the material discrepancy, if any, is to be examined. Honest discrepancy can always be there even in the statements of truthful witnesses. Therefore, I do not see any illegality in the impugned judgment. 5. Every discrepancy is not to be considered as fatal for the prosecution. Only the material discrepancy, if any, is to be examined. Honest discrepancy can always be there even in the statements of truthful witnesses. Therefore, I do not see any illegality in the impugned judgment. 5. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this court does not prevail upon the arguments raised by him, the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence as the recovery was effected as back as on 13.11.1983 and the petitioner is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last about 19 years. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has suffered the agony of criminal proceedings for 19 years, the substantive sentence of the petitioner stands reduced to nine months. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.