MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was arrested by the police party headed by A.S.I. Chanchal Singh (P.W.-I) in a case under Section 9 of the Opium Act on 26.5.1984 within the area of Police Station Banga. From the personal search of the accused one 12 bore country made pistol duly loaded was also recovered. The accused could not produce a valid licence for possessing the same. The pistol was unloaded and sketch Ex.PA of the pistoal was prepared. Pistol Ex.P-2, Cartride Ex.P-3 and Jholla Ex.P-1 were taken into possessi on vide recovery memo Ex.PB, attested by the P.W.-s Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the police Station Banga on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PC/1 was registered against the accused. Ex.PD is the rough site plan. Challan was presented against the accused. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that A.S.I. Chanchal Singh and Shadi Lal met him and took him into the police station and he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused, however, did not lead any defence evidence. The accused was convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. The conviction and sentence of the accused was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

(2.) The conviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the basis of the statement of A.S.I. Chanchal Singh and Constable Shadi Lal. During investigation no independent witness was joined. Two police officials have not been able to explain the purpose of their presence at a place where the petitioner was intercepted. There are material discrepancies in their statements. It would not at all be safe to rely upon such a testimony. In such a circumstances, independent probe was required. The case appears to be doubtful against the petitioner.

(3.) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is not sufficient reason to maintain the conviction and sentence of the revisionist and hence, the revision is allowed.