Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder vs State Of Hy on 2 December, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004
DATE OF DECISION:December 02,2014
Joginder
....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
Argued by: Sh.Sumit Sheokand, Advocate for the
appellant.
Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana.
RAJ RAHUL GARG,J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of appellant Joginder son of Ajmer Singh rendered by Mr.Manjit Singh, Judge, Special Court, Kaithal (Haryana).
There were in all three accused in this case namely Ramphal son of Jogi Ram, Suresh Kumar son of Bhale Ram and Joginder son of Ajmer Singh. Ramphal died KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 2 during the pendency of trial. In fact, Joginder Singh son of Ajmer Singh was initially kept under column No.2 of the challan and later on, he was summoned as accused. Vide impugned judgment of conviction, accused Suresh Kumar was acquitted of the charge after giving benefit of doubt.
Appellant Joginder was proceeded against for an offence under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as 'NDPS Act') for keeping in his possession 500 gms of opium.
Learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal vide judgment dated 20.12.2003, found appellant Joginder guilty of the offence alleged against him and while convicting him under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, imposed the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, apart from a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six more months. The order of sentence is dated 23.12.2003.
The case of the prosecution, as projected before the trial Court, was that on 03.10.1998, ASI, CIA staff, Guhla, who was examined as PW-8, received a telephonic message from some unknown person that tomorrow i.e. 04.10.1998, a four wheeler bearing registration No.HR- 39/3540, blue in colour, would come from the side of Peedal at about 3 p.m to 5 p.m. and the driver of the aforesaid four KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 3 wheeler deals in selling of opium and thereafter, the said informer disconnected the telephone. According to ASI Ashok Kumar, on 04.10.1998, he along with Head Constable Satbir Singh and other police officials held a picket at Peedal T-point. At about 3:30 p.m., a four wheeler came from the side of Peedal bearing registration No. HR-39/3540, blue in colour. The said four wheeler was stopped after giving signal. The name and address of the driver was enquired into who disclosed his name as Joginder son of Ajmer Singh. Thereupon, suspecting Narcotic Substance in possession of Joginder, a notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to him telling him that the police officer was suspecting some Narcotic Substance in the vehicle as well in his personal possession and as such the search of the vehicle as well his personal search was to be taken and further asked the appellant as to if he wanted his vehicle and his person to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. That notice is Ex. PE. It was signed by the appellant, HC Satbir Singh and Randhir Singh as witnesses. The appellant exercised his option in favour of the Gazetted Officer. Notice and consent memo were jointly prepared which is exhibited as Ex.PE. Thereafter, the appellant and the four wheeler were taken to the office of Pirthi Singh, Tehsildar Guhla. However, Tehsildar met the police party at his residence. He was KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 4 apprised of the facts of the case after producing the appellant, witnesses as well as four wheeler before him. The Tehsildar directed ASI Ashok Kumar to take the search of the four wheeler. Accordingly, ASI Ashok Kumar searched the four wheeler and found the opium from the beneath the ropes lying at the back of the driver seat. The opium was found in white colour polythene. Out of the recovered opium, 500 gms opium was separated as sample. Remainder was weighed to 450 gms. The sample as well the remainder were separately sealed into parcels with seal `AK' and of `PS' (Tehsildar seal). Specimen of the seal was also prepared. Sample parcel, parcel of residue opium and sample seal were taken into police possession vide Ex.PA. Ruqa Ex.PB was sent to the police Station whereupon, formal FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded. Rough site plan of spot Ex.PF was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested.
Thereafter, the appellant, case property and the witnesses were produced before ASI, P.S.Cheeka Chanderpal Singh(PW7) after going to the police station who verified the facts and, thereafter, affixed his seal `CPS' on each parcel. Case property was then deposited with MHC. Report Ex. PG under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, which was attested by the Tehsildar, sent to the senior police officer. KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 5 Investigating Officer handed over his seal to Head Constable Satbir Singh after use, whereas, the Tehsildar retained his seal with himself.
On 5.12.1998, when ASI Ashok Kumar was present in CIA, Kaithal. Many persons from the villages Sinad and Dhanouri came to him. Inquiries from appellant Ramphal and Suresh made and thereafter they were arrested. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sajjan Singh, DSP conducted inquiry on the application moved by Ajmer Singh, father of appellant Joginder. During the inquiry, the appellant was found innocent. As per report dated 10.11.1998, Ex.PH, the appellant was not challaned. However, on the basis of inquiry conducted by the DSP, accused Suresh and Ramphal were challaned by the police (accused Ramphal died during the trial). After framing of charge against accused Suresh and Ramphal and recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses, learned Public Prosecutor moved an application under section 319 CrPC for summoning the accused Joginder as additional accused whereupon vide order dated 16.4.2001 passed by Sh.R.C.Bansal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, appellant Joginder was summoned to face trial.
Thereafter, all the three accused, namely, Ramphal, Suresh and Joginder were charge sheeted for KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 6 committing offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act vide order dated 6.9.2001, whereas, accused Ramphal and Suresh were also charge sheeted for committing an offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC.
Prosecution examined PW1-Inspector Sumer Chand who simply prepared the report under Section 173 CrPC; PW2 Pirthi Singh, the then Tehsildar Guhla; PW3 ASI Satpal who formally arrested the accused Suresh Kumar; PW4 ASI Chanan Singh who recorded formal FIR Ex.PB/1; PW5 Constable Surinder Singh who took the sample to FSL and gave his affidavit Ex.PC; PW6-ASI Mohinder Singh, MHC of the Police Station who also tendered his affidavit Ex.PD in order to complete the link evidence. SI/SHO Chander Pal was examined as PW7. Before this witness, accused and case property were produced who after verifying the facts from the witnesses put seal impression `CPS' on the case property as well the sample. Investigating Officer Ashok Kumar, ASI appeared as PW8. ASI Kuldeep Singh was examined as PW6 who arrested the accused Ramphal; Satbir Singh was examined as PW8, whereas, Randhir Singh was examined as PW10. Head Constable-Satbir Singh appeared as PW12, whereas, S.K.Nagpal, Senior Scientific Officer appeared as PW13. DSP Sajjan Singh appeared as PW14.
KAMAL DEEP SEHRA2015.01.22 16:04
The report of FSL was tendered in evidence as I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 7 Ex.PH.. PW Inder Singh was given up as having been won over by the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor closed the evidence. Statements of accused under Section 313 CrPC were recorded wherein both the accused, namely, Suresh Kumar and Joginder pleaded their innocence. Accused Suresh Kumar stated that he was involved in a false case and actually nothing was recovered from his possession. Accused Joginder took the defence that he was innocent; the previous day of the alleged date of occurrence, Ramphal hired four wheeler in question for dropping his buffalo in village Peedal; in the morning, on the day of alleged occurrence, he took the buffalo of Ramphal by his four wheeler; Ramphal also accompanied him besides Randhir Singh son of Ram Kumar; from village Guhla, some persons also sat in the aforesaid four wheeler; those persons were dropped at Kaithal; thereafter, he took the water for putting the same in the radiator of the four wheeler from village Ferozpur; at Siwan, he stopped and got repaired the pipe of the radiator; thereafter, when they reached near T-point Peedal; police party was standing there; Ramphal accused got perturbed on seeing the police party; however, he told him not to worry as police was there in routine; at that time, the police did not stop the four wheeler in question; when they turned towards Peedal from T-point, Ramphal KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 8 accused asked him to drop his buffalo there; though there was no proper place to drop the buffalo, yet Ramphal accused made the buffalo jumped from the four wheeler; when he returned back, the police party got stopped the four wheeler and made him alighted from the four wheeler and told him that he was having some narcotic substance in the four wheeler; however, he expressed his ignorance about the same, then police party searched four wheeler; some packed material in the polythene was found there, then he was taken to the police station and arrested in this case; thereafter his father Ajmer Singh filed an application before DSP for investigation; on that application, Sajjan Singh, DSP investigated the case and found him innocent and then he was discharged by the Court. Accused Ramphal and Suresh were challaned; there was a dispute between Suresh and his elder brother on the said four wheeler on which he was driver.
Ajmer Singh was examined as DW1. He is father of accused Joginder. He deposed about the enmity between Suresh and his elder son Krishan on the four wheeler in question as earlier the aforesaid four wheeler was in partnership of Suresh and Krishan.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and appraising the evidence and KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 9 material on record, the Judge, Special Court, Kaithal acquitted accused Suresh Kumar, whereas, accused Joginder was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act vide judgment dated 20.12.2003 and by separate order of sentence dated 23.12.2003, the accused Joginder was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years besides a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC was also given. Fine was paid by the appellant.
Assailing the aforesaid judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2003 passed against the appellant, the appellant is before this Court.
I have heard Shri Sumit Sheokand, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana besides going through the entire evidence and material available on the file.
Shri Sumit Sheokand, Advocate for the appellant led much stress on the defence version. He argued that on account of personal enmity of Suresh Kumar with Krishan, elder brother of Joginder, the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. This implication is on the part of the KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 10 Suresh Kumar who connived with Ramphal accused (died during trial). In fact, Krishan and Suresh Kumar purchased a four wheeler in partnership. That four wheeler was used to be driven by Krishan, Joginder and Suresh Kumar. Later on, a dispute had arisen between the partners. The matter was got settled by way of settlement. Four wheeler was taken by Krishan and money was agreed to be given to Suresh Kumar for which they had given surety. After collecting money, which was to be paid by them to Suresh Kumar, when they were returning, Shamsher son of Rati Ram, Suresh Kumar son of Bhalla and Dheera son of Bahadur snatched four wheeler from Krishan on the drain near Kaithal. They had also snatched a sum of Rs.26,000/- from Krishan. A case was filed in the Court. The four wheeler was seized by the authorities. However, the opposite party had taken away the vehicle. After resorting to strike by the lawyers, that four wheeler was again seized. Kanshi Ram, Advocate was appointed as receiver who gave the vehicle in question to Krishan etc. for the purposes of plying. Under these circumstances, Suresh Kumar was nursing a grudge against Krishan and Joginder and then with the connivance of Ramphal, they planted 500 gms of opium in the vehicle in question. They hatched a conspiracy and as a consequence of which, Ramphal contacted Joginder's father, namely, KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 11 Ajmer Singh on 3.10.1998 and asked about the four wheeler in question. It was 2.30 p.m. at that time. Ajmer Singh disclosed that the vehicle in question would come at bus stand at about 3.00 p.m. Ramphal met with Joginder at bus stand. Joginder demanded a sum of Rs.5,00/- for dropping the buffalo at Peedal. However, he agreed to take the buffalo for Rs.450/-. Ramphal gave Rs.50/- to Joginder in advance and told him that at 7 o'clock in the morning they were to take the buffalo at Peedal. Accordingly, Joginder had gone to Ramphal along with the vehicle in question. On 4.10.1998, buffalo was loaded in the four wheeler and then Joginder left for calling Dheera as he was telling that he himself was alone. Dheera also accompanied them in that four wheeler. On the way, they stopped for a while as Ramphal was to purchase Bananas. Joginder and Dheera were to get the tape repaired. When they left for Peedal, the police was standing there. Ramphal felt perturbed by seeing the police. Joginder told that there was no need to worry as police was there in routine. After a little while, Ramphal asked Joginder to alight his buffalo at that place but since there was no place to alight the buffalo, therefore, he drove the vehicle ahead. At the Pullia, again Ramphal asked Joginder to alight his buffalo. Appellant Joginder told him that the legs of the buffalo will break, if he alights the KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 12 buffalo at that place but reaching near village, he alighted the buffalo at Chautra. Thereafter, when they had gone further, the police got the four wheeler stopped. This story of the defence is fully corroborated by the statement of DW1 Ajmer Singh, father of the appellant and even appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC deposed so. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that even the trial Court also observed that there was dispute between the parties i.e. Joginder, appellant, his elder brother Krishan and Suresh Kumar on the point of four wheeler in question. Not only this, even the entire sequence of events go to show that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case as Suresh Kumar in connivance with Ramphal planted opium in the four wheeler of Joginder.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn my attention towards statement of Sajjan Singh, DSP who was examined as PW14. He conducted the inquiry on the application Ex.PE moved by Ajmer Singh, father of the appellant. DSP gave his report in favour of the appellant concluding that there was dispute between both the parties on four wheeler. Suresh Kumar etc. could not tolerate the fact that the four wheeler in question was being plied by Krishan and Joginder. Suresh Kumar in connivance with Ramphal on the pretext of taking buffalo to Peedal got KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 13 planted opium in the four wheeler of Joginder. Thus, with this clear cut finding of DSP who is a gazetted Officer, it is proved on the file that as per counsel for the appellant that in fact the opium in question was not carried by Joginder, appellant but the same was got planted in four wheeler in question so as to implicate Joginder in a narcotic case.
On the other hand, it was contended by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana that the opium in question was recovered from the four wheeler driven by the appellant. At the time when the four wheeler in question was intercepted, the appellant was in possession of it. He also admitted this fact, as such, the appellant was in conscious possession of opium in question. Maybe there was a dispute regarding this very four wheeler between Krishan, Joginder and Suresh Kumar but that alone is not sufficient to hold that on account of that enmity they got planted opium in the four wheeler of Joginder. In fact, the report of DSP is of no meaning as during the course of inquiry, he admittedly did not join Investigating Officer of the case as well as the other prosecution witnesses so as to know the truthfulness of the case, as such the trial Court rightly did not place any reliance on the inquiry report since opium was recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, he has been rightly convicted.
KAMAL DEEP SEHRA2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 14
The learned trial Court observed that in para 22 of the judgment that "....no doubt there was a dispute between Joginder and Suresh accused regarding the four wheeler...". Even otherwise, at no stage, the aforesaid dispute on the point of four wheeler was ever denied. Learned DAG also did not deny the fact that Suresh and Krishan were having the four wheeler in partnership and later on, they fell apart and the four wheeler in question was given to Krishan. Of course, DSP Sajjan Singh did not record the statement of Investigating Officer of this case, yet the report of DSP cannot be said to have no bases or that it is a one line report.
From the report of DSP, Ex.PH, it is further evident that even prior to the present occurrence, Suresh along with Shamsher and Dheera snatched four wheeler in question besides money to the tune of Rs.26,000/-. A case was also registered regarding that occurrence. The Court had appointed an Advocate as receiver and four wheeler in question was parked at his house. Ramesh Chand alias Mahesha on 24.8.1997 had stolen away four wheeler in question from the house of Kanshi Ram, Advocate. A case bearing No.598 dated 24.8.1997 under Section 379 IPC was registered against him and the four wheeler in question was recovered from the possession of KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 Ramesh Chand. Then I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 15 Krishan took superdari of that four wheeler. In the inquiry, DSP recorded the statements of Rajbir Singh, Sarpanch, resident of Sinad, Ruldu Ram, ex-Sarpanch, resident of village Sinad, Inder Singh, Sarpanch, resident of village Dhanouri and 15/20 other respectables of the village. Thus, on the basis of statements of Sarpanch, former Sarpanch and respectables, DSP concluded that Suresh etc. could not tolerate the fact that four wheeler in question was being driven by Joginder and Krishan and, as such, Joginder is innocent.
It is, of course, true that burden of proof of defence on the accused is not that strict as on the prosecution. If accused succeeds in showing the defence version probable, it is sufficient to create dent in the prosecution case. In the case in hand, it is proved on the file that Suresh and Krishan, elder brother of the appellant, were at daggers drawn regarding four wheeler in question. Earlier they were partners but later on, the four wheeler in question was taken by Krishan by way of settlement and the money was to be paid to Suresh. The subsequent events, like, snatching of four wheeler in question on 12.8.1997 by Suresh and his accomplice and thereafter stealing of four wheeler in question from the custody of Kanshi Ram, Advocate (Receiver) on 24.8.1997 which resulted into KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 16 lodging of two FIRs further make the defence version probable.
Another circumstance that one day prior to the date of occurrence, Ramphal visited the house of appellant, booked the four wheeler in question for carrying buffalo to Peedal and thereafter feeling perturbed on seeing the police and then forcing Joginder to drop the buffalo at the place not suitable for alighting the buffalo, further makes the defence version probable; as otherwise, there was no reason for Ramphal not to get his buffalo alighted at the appointed place.
It is highly improbable that if Joginder wanted to carry 500 gms of opium, he would keep the packet at the place occupied by Ramphal and others and the buffalo. He could have hidden the contraband at some other place under his seat etc. Recovery of opium from the place i.e. from the beneath the ropes lying at the back of the driver seat i.e. the place used for carrying buffalo and other people, like, Ramphal etc. further shows that the place was accessible to Ramphal who had just alighted from the vehicle suddenly. The possibility that he might have kept opium at that place cannot be ruled out and thus his defence that he was having no knowledge of contraband is plausible and sufficient to KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 17 make defence version probable, benefit of which is to be given to the appellant.
Booking of vehicle, one day prior to the day of occurrence by Ramphal, receipt of secret information on that very day is another circumstance in favour of accused shows that in fact he was not having any knowledge about the contraband and further that the occurrence is the result of pre-planning.
The fact that initially by filing challan, Ramphal and Suresh were kept as accused, whereas, challan was not filed against Joginder, makes the involvement of Joginder doubtful. The name of Joginder, appellant was kept in column No.2. Later on, he was summoned under Section 319 CrPC. This further shows that even the Investigating Officer and SI/SHO of the Police Station Cheeka who prepared the challan under Section 173 CrPC were also convinced that Joginder, appellant was innocent. ASI-Ashok Kumar, PW8 categorically stated that on 5.12.1998, while he was present in CIA Kaithal, many persons came from the villages Sinad and Dhanouri, then inquiries were made from Ramphal and Suresh Kumar and after his satisfaction, they were arrested. Had, they were not involved in this case, the Investigating Officer would not have challaned them at all. Ashok Kumar PW-8, Investigation Officer of the case, during KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 18 the course of cross-examination admitted that "...... it came in the Investigation, that Tata 407 no.HR-39/3540 jointly owned by Krishan Kumar brother of Joginder accused and Suresh accused, and both Krishan and Suresh accused have dispute with regard to the said tampoo, and the said tampoo was handed over to Krishan Kumar on the order of the Court and Joginder was driving that tampoo. It also came in the investigation that Suresh Kumar placed the opium in the four wheeler in connivance with Ramphal accused. On 15.12.98, during the investigation, it came to my notice that buffalo was of Ramphal and Ramphal had come alongwith the buffalo and the buffalo was dropped at Peedal and Ramphal also dropped there."
Under these circumstances, if the statement of Investigating Officer was not recorded by DSP during the course of inquiry, that is of no consequence.
Thus, with the above discussed evidence on the file, the appellant has succeeded in showing the probability of defence version which is sufficient to create doubt in the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Under the above discussed circumstances, compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the Act also becomes necessary. It is a case in which the Investigating Officer has stated that secret information was received on KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 19 3.10.1998 and the opium was recovered from the four wheeler in question on the next day i.e. 4.10.1998. After receipt of secret information, not reducing the same into writing and not sending the same to the Superior Officers shows that the Investigating Officer did not comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. Maybe, the informer did not mention his details i.e. his name, address etc. Even otherwise, the name of the informer, his address etc. are not to be disclosed to anybody. Receipt of secret information, whereupon the police acted upon, one day prior to the date of occurrence, makes it obligatory on the Investigating Officer to comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. Of course, had the time gap between the receipt of secret information and the raid is so short so as to give a chance to the accused to slip away, then certainly it would not have been necessary to comply with the provisions of section 42 of the Act by the Investigating Officer. So far proposition expounded in Sajjan Abrahm v. State of Kerala 2001(3) (Crl.) 808 is concerned, there is no dispute but present is the case in which had the Investigating Officer recorded the secret information and complied with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, the genuineness of prosecution case would have become known. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2015.01.22 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2004 20 non compliance of provisions of section 42 of the Act caused prejudiced to the appellant.
No other point was urged before me by either of the parties.
In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, while giving benefit of doubt, the appellant Joginder is acquitted of the charge for which he was facing trial. The judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.8.2003 are also set aside. The appeal stands accepts. Amount of fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
December 02, 2014 (Raj Rahul Garg)
KD Judge
KAMAL DEEP SEHRA
2015.01.22 16:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court. Chandigarh