TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of sentence, failing which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to take the appellant into custody to serve remaining period of sentence. - Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2020 - Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice R. Subhash Reddy And Justice B. R. Gavai For the Petitioner's : D. Mahesh Babu For the Respondent's : Ranjeeta Rohatgi JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.04.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1999 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 2. The appellant herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed was arrested and after completion of the investigation, he was challaned. On appearance in the court, the documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused. A charge under Section 18 of the Act was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove the charge against the appellant on behalf of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined i.e Devi Lal, HC, (PW-1), Darbara Singh, SI, (PW-2), SI (PW-3), and Sham Lal, Constable (PW-4). After closure of evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he was explained of all incriminating circumstances appeared against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication, however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplete, in spite of the same Trial Court and High Court has committed error in convicting the appellant. Further it is submitted that though independent witnesses were there in the patrolling party, such witnesses were not examined and conviction was solely based on the official witnesses. Further it is submitted that S.K. Asthana, ASP who is claimed to have joined to the party by the police, was not even examined and in fact he was not there and opium was not recovered in his presence. It is also pleaded thus there is a violation of provision under Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, to buttress his submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Yogi Raj SHO handed over the case property to Joginder Singh, ASI, for production before the Court. After producing the case property before the Court, he returned the case property to Yogi Raj, SHO (PW-3) with the seals intact. It is also to be noticed that Joginder Singh, ASI was not in possession of seals of either of the investigating officer or of Yogi Raj, SHO. He produced the case property before the Court on 13.09.1996 vide application Ex.P-13, the concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, after verifying the seals on the case property, passed the order Ex.P-14 to the effect that since there was no judicial malkhana at Abohar, the case property was ordered to be kept in safe custody, in Police Station Khuian Sarwar till furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at on seeing the police party, he turned towards the Southern bank of the canal but was apprehended on suspicion. It is specifically pleaded that the ASP, Abhor who was called at the spot and in his presence his bag was searched which resulted into recovery of 1 kg 750 grams of opium. The Trial Court as well as the High Court, has recorded a finding that the perusal of the record reveals the ASP was summoned number of times but either service was not effected or as and when he was served, he sent a request for exemption from personal attendance stating valid reasons. Further, it appears that the High Court has issued directions to the Trial Court to decide the case before 30.04.1999. As much as S.K. Asthana, ASP was not examined by 30.04.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. In the case of State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Anr. (2001)1 SCC 652 it was held as under: It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Courts cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. AS a presumption of law, the presumption would be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
