Criminal Appeal No. 270-DBA of 1999 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 270-DBA of 1999 Date of decision : 13.5.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Ajaib Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/accused. However, in view of the fact that leave to appeal in this case had been granted by a Coordinate Bench as early as on 24.5.1999, we opted to examine the record. Learned Trial Judge exonerated the respondent/accused on a charge under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short “the Act”) by noticing that there was non compliance with the provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of the Act and also because the only independent witness ( Gurcharan Singh) had been withheld at the trial. We have heard Shri D.S. Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. As already noticed, none entered appearance on behalf of respondent/accused. We find from a perusal of the record that the observations Criminal Appeal No. 270-DBA of 1999 -2- *** recorded by the learned Trial Judge are record-related. Even otherwise, learned State counsel does not even suggest that these observations proceed on a factually incorrect premise. The only independent witness Gurcharan Singh was not examined on the premise that he had been won over by the respondent/accused. In all fairness, the prosecution ought to have examined him at the trial and let the Trial Court arrive at its own conclusion with regard to his winning over by the respondent/accused or otherwise. The penal provisions provided under the Act being fairly harsh in character, the prosecution is obliged to prove a case beyond doubt before the culprit can be indicted on a charge under that Act. In the absence of independent corroboration, the Court would have to scrutinise the testimony of official witnesses with utmost care and caution. SI Baldev Singh PW-1 was not in a position to remember either the number of jeep or the name of driver by which the police party had travelled to the spot. Likewise, PW-2 Joginder Singh could not remember if the respondent-accused had put his thumb impression on the personal search memo and the memo regarding intimation of grounds of arrest to him or not. If these two witnesses had actually been present on the spot, then discrepancies in their statements would not have occurred. This aspect assumes added importance particularly in view of the fact that there is no indefensible contradiction of the official testimony. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. We have examined the impugned finding on the Criminal Appeal No. 270-DBA of 1999 -3- *** touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 13, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE