Criminal Revision No.926 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.926 of 2005. Date of Decision : 15.2.2011. Charanjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Assistant Collector of Customs, Custom Division, Amritsar. ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 28th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 27th, 2001 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, whereby, the petitioner was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. 2. On March 5th, 1989 one Satnam Singh alias Bitta was apprehended at Delhi by the officials of the Custom Department having in his possession 199 gold biscuits. On his information, a raid was conducted at the house of Charanjit Singh-petitioner situated in Basant Avenue, Amritsar on March 6th, 1989 by Ranjit Singh, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short 'the 'DRI'), Amritsar along with Kapil Sood (PW-1), Kewal Krishan (PW- 2)-Intelligence Officers of DRI, G.S. Bal, Bhuta Singh, Chuni Lal officials of the DRI. Vinod Kumar and Gian Singh independent witnesses were also joined. Search of the house was conducted. An Criminal Revision No.926 of 2005 2 amount of Rs.1,01,300/- was recovered from the false shelf of almirah and 100 gold biscuits having foreign mark of 10 tola each weighing 11,600 gms were recovered from underneath the mattress of the bed. The price of the biscuits was assessed at the rate of Rs.37,31,200/-. Statement of Charanjit Singh was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was stated by him that Amrik Singh co-accused (since deceased) was his friend. He was arrested under National Security Act and after his release, he started assisting Amrik Singh who was a smuggler. Amrik Singh used to smuggle gold from Pakistan and he (petitioner) used to transport the same to various places for which he was paid Rs.30,000/- per consignment of hundred gold biscuits. It was also stated by him that the recovered gold biscuits were delivered to him by one Deesha, an associate of Amrik Singh, a day prior to the recovery, that is, March 5th, 1989 at his residence and the same was to be delivered to one Babbo on March 6th, 1989 at 11 a.m. 3. The Custom Department's officials after obtaining sanction filed complaint under Section 135 of the Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. 4. Procedure of warrant trial was followed. In pre and post charge evidence, the complainant examined Kapil Sood, Inspector Customs (PW-1) and Kewal Krishan, Intelligence Officer (PW-2). 5. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded that he was falsely implicated. 6. In this case, the recovery of the amount and the gold biscuits weighing 11,600 gms was effected in the presence of Ranjit Singh, Kapil Sood (PW-1), Kewal Krishan (PW-2) besides other officials of the Custom Department and two independent witnesses Vinod Kumar and Gian Singh. Kapil Soood (PW-1) and Kewal Krishan (PW-2) have spoken in one voice that the amount of Rs.1,01,300/- and 100 gold biscuits having foreign mark weighing 11,600 gms were recovered from the house of the petitioner. They Criminal Revision No.926 of 2005 3 have also proved Panchnama (Exhibit PA), chit recovered from the possession of the petitioner (Exhibit PB), Purity Certificate of gold issued by Vijay Kumar, Goldsmith (Exhibit PC). Both these witnesses were cross examined at length but their testimony could not be shaken despite searching questions put in the cross-examination. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since no independent witness was examined by the Custom Authorities so, the testimony of official witnesses is not sufficient to prove the recovery of gold biscuits and currency notes from the possession of the petitioner. 8. The argument of learned counsel pales into insignificance because it has come in the statements of Kapil Sood (PW-1) and Krishan Kumar (PW-2) that Vinod Kumar and Gian Singh were joined as independent witnesses although they were not examined in the Court. There is no legal proposition that evidence of public officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent witness or even presence of such witness during raid would cast an added duty on the Court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the public officers. If the evidence of the public officer is found acceptable, it would be an erroneous proposition that Court must reject the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness was examined. To suspect the officials of the department in respect of acts done by them in the discharge of their public duties, shall run counter to the recognized principles of law that the presumption is that a person, including a public official, acts honestly unless the contrary is proved. There is no evidence that there was any previous enmity between the public officials concerned and the petitioner, who in fact, was a stranger or that they wanted him to implicate in a false case. Why the petitioner should have been implicated falsely ? The quantity of gold was 11,600 kgs. Will the Custom Officers plant this quantity ? The answer to these questions has to be in the negative. This Court sees no reason why the testimony of Kapil Sood (PW-1) and Kewal Krishan (PW-2) should Criminal Revision No.926 of 2005 4 not be relied upon. Thus, the guilt was brought home to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and conviction and the sentence as imposed by learned trial Judge do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 9. The revision is dismissed. 10. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.2.2011. SN