State Of Punjab vs Hari Singh And Ors

3. According to the prosecution case, on 9.7.1999, SI Krishan Kumar along with other police officials and one PW Gurjail Singh was going from village Kadrabad to Gajewas and when they were three kilometers away from the village, they noticed three men and two women sitting on the bags lying between the surgarcane fields and a heap of earth. On seeing the police party, these persons tried to slip away. Sub Inspector Krishan Kumar stopped the vehicle and apprehended accused Puran Singh, Hari Singh, Jaswinder Kaur and Charanjit Kaur while 5th accused (who was identified as Amrik Singh by Gurjail Singh) slipped away. The Sub-Inspector sent a wireless message to the police station and called S.P.Os Rajwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur to the spot and in their presence apprised the apprehended persons that the police want to search the bags on which they had been sitting and they could ask for search being conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In response to this, the 2 persons opted for being searched by a Gazetted Officer. Their statements were recorded and through wireless, S.I. Krishan Kumar requested DSP, Samana Shri Paramvir Gill to reach at the spot and in his presence the bags were taken and grounds of arrest served upon the appellants and eventually after receipt of adverse report from the Chemical Examiner a challan was presented against them.

4. After considering the materials and evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie a case under Section 15 of the Act was made out against the accused and as they pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence. It examined SI Manjit Singh (PW-1), HC Rakesh Kumar (PW-2), DSP P.S. Gill (PW-3), Inspector Krishan Kumar (PW-4), Gurtej Singh (PW-5) and SI Gurcharan Singh (PW6).

5. After conclusion of the evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case were put to the accused, who denied the allegations and asserted that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the police due to enmity. Puran Singh asserted that Inspector Paramjit Singh who was posted as SHO, Police Station, 3 Dirba, District Sangrur and ASI Jarnail Singh are inimical towards him. The police officials had picked up his sons Amrik Singh, Baghel Singh and his nephew Paramjit Singh on 16.4.1987. Aggrieved by this, Puran Singh had filed a writ petition of habeas corpus and when this petition came up for hearing. Mr. M.L. Bharara, Superintendent of High Court, who was appointed as Warrant Officer had also been brought into Police Station by ASI Jarnail Singh and when the Warrant Officer inquired about him, the Police Officials replied that he had given him a thousand rupee as bribe for making a false report. Action under the Contempt of Courts Act had been initiated against two officials and Inspector Paramjit Singh had been fined with Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of two months. Again, Gurusewak Singh, who was DSP Railways had picked up his son and brother-in-law. His brother-in-law was killed and in that case his son had appeared as a witness against the police officials and writ petition had also been filed against them in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Due to this, Police Department is inimical towards him and his family and had falsely implicated them in the case. The accused had brought on record certified copy of the judgment passed by Shri G.S. Dhiman, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 24.5.2003 and photocopy of the Criminal Contempt Petition No.13 of 1987 marked D2 and 4 closed the evidence.

7. Stand of the accused persons before the High Court was that there was no evidence to show any conscious possession, which is a sine-qua-non for recording conviction under Section 15 of the Act. Additionally, it was submitted that no question regarding possession was put to any of them in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `the Code'). It was also urged that the prosecution was the outcome of personal vandata by some officials. The High Court accepted the stand of the appellants and directed acquittal holding that there was no evidence of conscious possession and in any event, the requisite questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were not put.

45. Above being the position, we find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, certain directions given by the High Court for initiation of action against some officials could not have been given while dealing with an appeal and, therefore, stand expunged. The appeal is dismissed except for a direction for expulsion of the direction for initiation of departmental action.