Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1990 Date of Decision: 25.01.2008. Budh Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG Punjab for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner Budh Singh was convicted under Section 9 (1) 78 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 19.7.1990. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence awarded by Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1990 2 learned Courts below, the petitioner has preferred present revision petition. Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that he will confine his arguments to a solitary legal submission that the affidavits Ex. PF and Ex.PH, respectively, submitted by Moharrir Head Constable Ranjit Singh and Constable Sukhdev Singh are not in consonance with High Court Rules and Orders and, therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the link evidence. A certified copy of affidavits of Moharrir Head Constable Ranjit Singh and of Constable Sukhdev Singh tendered on 31.7.1990 has been handed over to this Court and he points out that these affidavits may form part of the record. I have perused the affidavits. It is nowhere stated therein that which part of the affidavit is based on the knowledge and which part is on the basis of information and belief of the deponents. In support thereof, Mr. Amarjit Singh has relied upon four judgments of this Court, one of a Division Bench and three of a Single Bench i.e. State of Punjab v. Leela Singh 1991 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 306 (DB), Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab 1992(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 39, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab 1991(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 69 and Harjeet Singh v. State of Haryana 1987(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 217. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, stated that 11 bags of poppy husk were recovered and he has stated that the petitioners were tried under the Opium Act as at that time Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was not enacted. Be as it may, he has not been able to defend the affidavits by which link Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1990 3 evidence could be established. Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of charge. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 25, 2008 “DK”