Haryana State Pollution Control Board vs Ashok Tuli on 1 December, 2016
He stated that the shop was searched and 95 cartridges of HP
15, 90 cartridges of HP20 and 162 MRP stickers were found. He stated that
police seized all the recovered case properties in two gunny bags, however, he
could not tell as to what case property was put in each gunny bag. He stated
that thereafter the case property was deposited in PS Kalkaji and his statement
was recorded by the police. He stated that the searchcumseizure memo are
Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C and the arrest memo and personal search memo of
the accused are Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E. The case property i.e two gunny bags
FIR No. 451/04 State Vs. Nitin Tuli 3/9
were produced in the Court during the examination of this witness, however,
the seal of one of the aforesaid gunny bag was in broken condition. This witness
identified the case property. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross
examine this witness on the ground that this witness was not stating the
complete facts and the permission to cross examine this witness was granted by
Ld Predecessor. During his cross examination this witness admitted the
suggestions put forth by Ld APP for the State. However, he denied that he was
not deliberately identifying the accused properly. He categorically denied that
the person present in the Court was the accused or that he could correctly
identify him. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that
he started working with EIPR in the year 2002 and worked till 2007 and that he
had been associated with number of search and seizure proceedings but he could
not tell the number of search proceedings. He could not tell the date as to when
he joined the search and seizure proceedings in the present case and he could
not tell the date of the complaint given by him. He stated that during his
examination he deposed regarding the date after reading the Court file and he
deposed regarding the other things as well after reading the Court file. He
stated that no DD entry was done when the case property was deposited in PS
Kalkaji and that he had not signed any document/register in PS Kalkaji while
depositing the case property. He also stated that the name of the person
disclosed in his complaint given to the police was on the basis of source
information and that he had not himself conducted any investigation nor had he
purchased any goods of HP company from the person whose name was disclosed
in the complaint given by him to the police. He could not tell as to whether he
handed over any original product or logo of HP company to the IO during the
investigation. He stated that at the time of alleged raid no person except him or
police officials were present.