Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 123 (PNJ)

Chanan Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-01-22

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - The brief facts of the case are that on 14.8.1985, SI Surinder Kumar along with some other police officials was going towards village Basrawan in connection with patrol duty. During the way, DSP Varinder Singh and other police officials from Central Reserve Protection Force were associated. When they reached near the turning of Kalwan, Swaran Singh Sarpanch of village Kalwan met the policy party and the police party held a nakabandi on the culvert in the area of Basrawan where SI Surinder Kumar had received secret information that Chanan Singh had arms and ammunition in his possession in his farm house and if a raid was conducted, recovery could be effected. A raid was conducted at the first house of Chanan Singh. He was taken into custody and was interrogated. During interrogation, Chanan Singh disclosed that he had kept concealed and buried two rifles of 303 mark-II, one carbine machine 9 mm, 141 live cartridges of 9 mm and 76 live cartridges of 303 under the heap of toori. His disclosure statement Ex. PA was recorded. The accused Chanan Singh led the police party to the specified place and got recovered the above said arms and ammunition. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and after completion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for 3 months under section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala dated 7.11.1992. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who vide order dated 10.1.1994 upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. 2. Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold contention. 3. His first contention is that in this case, S.I. Surinder Kumar was posted at Police Station Qadian, whereas the recovery alleged to have been taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Hargobindpur. He contended that under Rule 25.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, the investigator is bound to send an intimation to the concerned Police Station with regard to the committing of cognizable offence. He contended that under Rule 25.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, the investigator is bound to send an intimation to the concerned Police Station with regard to the committing of cognizable offence. He further contended that if S.I. Surinder Kumar had to effect the recovery, then he had to take the assistance from the said police station. He also contended that this rule is mandatory and violation of the rule, vitiated the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. Mr. H.S. Grewal, learned DAG submitted that violation of Punjab Police Rule has not caused prejudice to the petitioner. He contended that this rule is not mandatory and it is directory in nature. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and find force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Rule 25.3 of the Punjab Police Rules reads as under :- "25.3 Action when offence occurring in another police station is reported :- When the occurrence of a cognizable offence in another police station jurisdiction is reported, the fact shall be recorded, in the daily diary and information shall be sent to the officer in charge of the police station in the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. Meanwhile all possible lawful measures shall be taken to secure the arrest of the offender and the detection of the offence." 7. A perusal of the above-quoted rule shows that when it came to the notice of the police officer that a cognizable offence in the jurisdiction of other police station is committed, he shall record that fact in his daily dairy of his police station and shall send the same to the officer incharge of the Police Station where the offence has been committed. The purpose of this rule is that the police officer may not interfere in the working of other police stations and also may not falsely implicate the innocent persons who are residing outside the jurisdiction of his police station. This contention has been brushed aside by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that demarcation of area of police station is for administrative purpose but does not confine the powers of police officer if place of recovery is in adjoining area of his place of posting in the same police sub division as well as district. This contention has been brushed aside by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that demarcation of area of police station is for administrative purpose but does not confine the powers of police officer if place of recovery is in adjoining area of his place of posting in the same police sub division as well as district. These observations of the learned Appellate Court are contrary to the mandate of rule 25.3 of the Punjab Police Rules. 8. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Investigator of the case has misused the provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act. He contended that as per the prosecution witnesses the informer has disclosed to the Investigator the place where arms and ammunition were alleged to have been kept by the petitioner i.e. a mussal (heap of wheat chaff). He submitted that when prosecution has done padding to the case, then accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charge. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 217. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and find force in the same. 10. Charan Singh PW has admitted in his cross-examination that informer has disclosed to the SHO the place of recovery i.e. mussal. Once the place of recovery is in the knowledge of the Investigator, then recording the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is nothing but a futile exercise. It is not the case that the petitioner has many mussals. The Investigator without recording the statement of the petitioner can interrogate him and can effect the recovery from the mussal. 11. In Aher Raja Khimas case (supra) in para 20 the Apex Court has held as under :- "Then we come to the recoveries. The false beard and mask were found buried in the grounds of Dewayats house and the appellant is said to have recovered them in the presence of panchas. But those discoveries are inadmissible in evidence because the police already knew where they were hidden. Their information was not derived from the appellant but from Dewayat (one of the other suspects). The way the police came to find this out was this. But those discoveries are inadmissible in evidence because the police already knew where they were hidden. Their information was not derived from the appellant but from Dewayat (one of the other suspects). The way the police came to find this out was this. Dewayat says that the appellant confessed the murder to him and told him that he had gone there wearing a false beard and a mask and that he had buried these articles under the Shami tree in the grounds of Dewayats bada. Dewayat says -- "Next the police called me to go to Kalawad. At that time Raja had been arrested.....I was interrogated. I spoke about the beard at that time. "Then the police came to my field with Raja". If Meraman (P.W.11), read with the confused statement of Kana (P.W.4) is to be believed, Dewayat was also under arrest either at the time or on the day before. As the Sub Inspector was not examined, we are unable to clear this up and so are bound to give weight to the criticism of the Sessions Judge, where he says -- "However, Dewayat confesses that his statement was not recorded on the 19th of May 1952 but was recorded on 20.5.1952 only after he was questioned by the police." 12. In our opinion, not only is this evidence about recovery not admissible but the danger that Samant (P.W.16) mistook Dewayat, who was also under strong suspicion or someone else who looked like the appellant, for the appellant, has not been excluded." 13. So from the facts of the case, it shows that the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is inadmissible in law. 14. For the reasons recorded above, this criminal revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and subsequently affirmed in appeal is set aside. Revision allowed.