Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 212 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Lekh Raj

2006-01-25

AMAR DUTT, BALDEV SINGH

body2006
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. The State of Punjab is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.1.2005 passed by the Judge Special Court, Ludhiana acquitting Lekh Raj, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No RJ-13C-5137 of the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for which he faced trial along with Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 22.12.2002, jeep driven by respondent was seen coming from the side of village Issewal. Besides the respondent, who was driving the jeep, it was carrying two persons namely Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar, who were sitting on the rear seat of the jeep and when asked to stop, these persons started picking up a brief case, which was lying on the seat and tried to hide it between their legs. The respondent and two passengers were apprehended, identified and the brief case was searched. The search led the recovery of 5 Kilograms of opium for possession whereof respondent and the passengers were challaned. On conclusion of the trial, the following plea was taken by the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. : "I am innocent. I am working as driver on jeep No. RJ-13C-5137 for the last 2/3 years. The said jeep is owned by Lajpat Rai s/o Jeewan Dass, resident of Padampur, Sri Ganganagar. The jeep was attached with Padampur Taxi Stand. Sh. Mohinder Singh is President of the said Taxi Stand. On 22.12.02, two passengers came on the Taxi Stand and asked him to go to Distt. Ludhiana. After negotiations a rate of Rs. 3.25 per KM was settled between the passengers and him. We started towards Ludhiana at about 8.00 A.M. During the journey from Padampur to Ludhiana, I purchased diesel from two/three petrol pumps against proper receipts. The police had taken into possession driving licence along with the receipts of the diesel purchased by him. I was not aware and did not know what was lying with the passengers. Nothing was recovered from my possession. I was falsely implicated in this case. I do not know my co-accused." The Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him and convicted Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar. So far as Lekh Raj respondent is concerned, the trial Court came to the following conclusion : "16. Nothing was recovered from my possession. I was falsely implicated in this case. I do not know my co-accused." The Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him and convicted Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar. So far as Lekh Raj respondent is concerned, the trial Court came to the following conclusion : "16. The above quoted authorities are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case so far accused Lekh Raj is concerned. Accused Lekh Raj was a taxi driver. His taxi was hired from Padampur by the accused Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar and accused Lekh Raj had no knowledge about what was contained in the brief case of the accused and no recovery was effected from him and as such, accused Lekh Raj is acquitted of the charge framed against him." 3. The State being dissatisfied with the acquittal of respondent Lekh Raj had filed the present application for grant of special leave to appeal. 4. This Court had issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why leave to appeal be not granted. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their help have scanned through the evidence, which was brought before the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. 6. We find that in the evidence, there is no material from which it could be inferred that respondent had any knowledge about what was being carried by the passengers in the brief case that was in the possession of the passengers Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar. In this view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, in our opinion, cannot be held to be perverse as in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference is very limited. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 S.C.C.(Cri.) 519, wherein it was observed as under : "Though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial Court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial Court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial Court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding." 7. Reliance can also be placed on the observations of the Apex Court in Dwarka Das & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2002(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 794, wherein it was observed as under: "While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence; one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial Court, would have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Session Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Session Judge as otherwise there would be gross miscarriage of justice - so said Patanaik J. in Hariram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(3) R.C.R.(Crl.) 414 (SC) : [2000(9) S.C.C. 136]." 8. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground for grant of special leave to appeal. Consequently, the Criminal Misc. Application is dismissed.