AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P.S. Sandhu, J.
Kasturi Lal petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/ in default R.I. for six months under section 9 of the Opium Act.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.7.1980 Kulwant Singh City Inspector, Ludhiana while investigating a case under section 9 of the Opium Act against one Arun Kumar got information from him that his other counterpart Kasturi Lal was also in possession of opium near Samrala Road, Ludhiana. The Inspector deputed A.S.I. Sardara Singh and H.C. Krishan Lal and some other police officials to apprehend the suspected person. When the party reached near the Shingar cinema, Kasturi Lal petitioner was found present there holding two attache cases. He was apprehended. The attache cases were searched. Each of the attache case was found containing 20 kg. of opium. The sample of opium from both the attache cases was taken and sent for chemical examination. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, the sample contained morphine.
The prosecution evidence consists of the statement of two police officials, namely PW 1 Krishan Lal HC and PW 2 Sardara Singh A.S.I.
Although the police party had a prior information, they did not care to join any independent person for the purposes of apprehending the suspect. Admittedly the place from where the petitioner was apprehended is a busy place in the city of Ludhiana. Out of these two police officials PW 2 Sardara Singh ASI was declared hostile and was crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Jagir Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1975 SC 1400 wherein their Lordship were pleased to hold as under :
"It is now settled that when the witness who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be crossexamined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit that witness altogether and not merely to get rid of a part of his testimony."
For the aforesaid reasons, I don''t think it to be safe to allow the conviction of the petitioner to stand, on the solitary statement of HC Krishan Lal PW. Consequently, while giving him the benefit of doubt, I allow this petition and acquit him of the charge.