Kulwant Singh @ Kanta vs The State Of Punjab on 6 February, 2014
38. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
owner of the vehicle was not made accused and was allowed to go scot
free. The vehicle in question was in the name of Sant Kumar and he was
authorised to sell the vehicle. However, prosecution has shown that the
vehicle has been sold by Balbir Singh son of Gurbax Singh to Balbir Singh
son of Baldev Singh. However, Balbir Singh son of Gurbax Singh (PW-9)
has been declared hostile as he had stated in the Court that he had sold the
vehicle to one Raj Kumar. The prosecution had intentionally implicated
Balbir Singh son of Baldev Singh instead of Sant Kumar. How, Balbir son
of Gurbax Singh can sell the vehicle without being the registered owner is
unimaginable. This fact shows that the intention of the police officials was
to purposely save Sant Kumar from the vehicle and the possibility of poppy
husk recovered from him cannot be ruled out. To support this contention
learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authorities Union of India
Criminal Appeal No.S.1145-SB of 2011 16
versus Bal Mukund & Ors reported in 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) page
574 and Criminal Appeal No. S. 473 SB of 2003 Kuldeep vs. State of
Haryana decided on 19.12.2012.