Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs M/S Kewal Krishan And Ors on 21 November, 2017
Author: A. B. Chaudhari
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-No.966-SBA OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION : 21st NOVEMBER, 2017
State of Punjab
.... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kewal Krishan and sons Umarpura and others
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. B. CHAUDHARI
****
Present : Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab,
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. (Oral)
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2005 passed
in Sessions Case No.42 of 1995 in complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of
Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 read with terms and conditions of dealer
Registration Certificate and Section 7 and 12-AA of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), the present appeal was filed by the
State through its Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, against acquittal
of the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
In support of the appeal against acquittal, learned State
counsel vehemently argued that the trial Court has committed error in
recording the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused. According to
him the trial Court erred in not placing reliance on the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses when the sample was taken in accordance with the
standard procedure. There was no reason for the trial Court to record
acquittal of the respondents-accused. According to him the reasons given
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 10-12-2017 12:45:29 :::
CRA-S-No.966-SBA OF 2006
-2-
by the trial Court are faulty and perverse and therefore, the order of
acquittal deserves to be converted into the one of conviction.
None appears for the respondents-accused.
Upon hearing, learned counsel for the State in the present
appeal against acquittal, I find that the sample was collected by the
concerned Inspector on 28.07.1993. The trial Court found that entire
procedure that was required to be followed for collection of sample
scrupulously was not followed nor there was any corroborative evidence
for corroborating the testimony of PW-4 Uttamjit Singh. I quote the
following extract from para 12 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"12. xxx... xxx... However, I must point out some
points of procedure which have not been complied
with. There is no mention in the complaint as well
as in the statement of Uttamjit Singh PW-4 that the
sample was not exposed to rain/sun. Nothing is also
mentioned that the material being samples the
following struments and the bag of sample were
free from any adventitious contamination. Uttamjit
Singh PW-4 has simply stated that he selected three
bags for taking sample and he took the sample with
the help of sampling probe. The sample was
divided into three parts and each part was put in a
polythene bag. The statement of Uttamnit Singh
PW-4 is silent that each bag selected for sampling
was thoroughly mixed as possible by suitable
means. xxx... xxx..."
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 10-12-2017 12:45:30 :::
CRA-S-No.966-SBA OF 2006
-3-
Relying on some decisions of this Court the learned trial
Court also held that PW-4 himself admitted in the examination-in-chief
that the bags of fertilizers were machine stitched. In the wake of the said
admission the trial Court recorded the following finding in
para 15:
"15. I do not agree with the argument advanced by
ld. Addl. P.P. on the ground that there is no
evidence on the file to show that the dealer had kept
stitching machine with him. There is also no
reference of any stitching machine in the complaint
as well as tin the evidence of prosecution. So, it can
safely be presumed that the bags were stitched by
the manufacturing company and not by the dealer.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Judge of our
own High Court has observed in 'State of Punjab v
Jagdish Chand and others 2004 (2) RCR Page 479'
that it has come on record that the sample was taken
from the stiched bags and the dealer namely
accused No.1 cannot be in any case be held guilty if
the sample has been found to be sub-standard."
The finding recorded by the trial Court that no independent
witness was joined and therefore, the prosecution case was liable to be
rejected, does not appeal to me as law is settled i.e. the testimony of a
single witness can be believed and there is no need for corroboration by
public witnesses who otherwise are not interested in joining the
investigation and supporting the prosecution.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 10-12-2017 12:45:30 :::
CRA-S-No.966-SBA OF 2006
-4-
Nevertheless, the reasons quoted by the trial Court above are
good enough to extend the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I make the
following order:
ORDER
(i) CRA-S-No.966-SBA OF 2006 is dismissed.
21st NOVEMBER, 2017 (A. B. CHAUDHARI)
'raj' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 10-12-2017 12:45:30 :::