Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1227 (PNJ)

Mithu Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-15

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This case has been shown repeatedly in the list and a request had also been made to secure the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant. He has, however, not put in appearance. The facts of the case are as under :- 2. On 24.8.1984 at about 8.00 P.M., ASI Mehar Singh along with other police officials was going from village Gehri Bara Singh towards Maisar Khana and when he reached the outskirts of the village; he saw accused Mithu Singh throwing away a bag that he was carrying and then running away. The Assistant Sub Inspector picked up the bag as he suspected it to contain opium. He took out 10 grams of the material in the bag as a sample and sealed the remaining 3 Kgs. and 490 grams. A ruqa was also sent to the police station and on its basis a formal FIR was registered. On analysis of the sample, the Chemical Examiner found it to be opium. 3. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence produced before it, convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 4. This judgment was assailed by Mithu Singh in appeal which too was dismissed, but the sentence was reduced from two years to one year. 5. It is against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda that the present petition has been filed. 6. It will be seen that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of ASI Ajaib Singh (PW-1) and ASI Mehar Singh (PW-2), the two police witnesses, who were members of the police party, which had effected the seizure. As the accused had not been arrested at the spot, then evidence must be very carefully analysed. Both these witnesses had stated that they knew the accused earlier. The fact does, however, remain that the accused had not been arrested at the spot and as the seizure had been made at night, it would have been appropriate to have put the accused to an identification parade. Both these witnesses had stated that they knew the accused earlier. The fact does, however, remain that the accused had not been arrested at the spot and as the seizure had been made at night, it would have been appropriate to have put the accused to an identification parade. It is also clear from the cross-examination of PW Ajaib Singh that his version that he knew Mithu Singh earlier was not convincing as he did not know much about the background of the accused. It must, therefore, he held that the accused had been identified for the first time in the Court by the two witnesses. Moreover, it appears from the trial Courts judgment that there were several discrepancies in the evidence of the two witnesses, which clearly shows that the paper work pertaining to the case had not completed at the spot as alleged, but had been done elsewhere. 7. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.