AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ujagar Singh, J.
This criminal revision arises out of the conviction and sentence under section 9 of the Opium Act. The petitioner was arrested on the railway platform, Ambala Cantt. at about 3.35 A.M. on 10th October, 1976 by S.I. Katasi Ram P.W. 1 who was accompanied by other police officials. The petitioner was carrying a hand bag containing 6.500 kg. of opium. The petitioner was tried and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial of the petitioner started on 10th January, 1977 when the challan was put in. It took over more than seven years and a half to complete the trial. Appeal against his conviction and sentence was decided on 26th February, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the affidavit of Karan Singh, A.S.I. is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter 12B of volume IV of the High Court Rules and JUDGMENTs has also prescribed the form of affidavit and this affidavit Exhibit P.X does not conform to those requirement. The verification on the affidavit of Karan Singh A.S.I. when translated, reads as follows :
"I, Karan Singh, A.S.I. hereby solemnly affirm and state that I, have heard my above statement while in sound disposing mind and the same is verified on my knowledge and information. Nothing had been concealed therefrom."
The verification of the affidavit is required to be either on knowledge, or on information and it should show specifically which part of the affidavit is verified on dependent''s knowledge and which part is verified on deponent''s information. The whole of the affidavit in this case has been verified on the basis of knowledge and information. Such affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. In support, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Partap Singh, 1978 CLR. (Pb & Har.) 83 is referred to Excluding. The affidavit of Karan Singh A.S.I., Exhibit PX, we are left with no evidence as to when this sample of the opium was deposited in the Malkhana and when it was sent for chemical analysis. Such an important link of evidence is missing and exclusion of this affidavit goes to the root of the case. The petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt on this score".
This petition is, therefore, accepted. The orders of The lower Courts are set aside and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge.