STATE OF PUNJAB Vs TEJA SINGH
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,B.S. CHAUHAN, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001297-001297 / 2005
Diary number: 7195 / 2005
Advocates: KULDIP SINGH Vs
BALRAJ DEWAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1297 OF 2005
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
TEJA SINGH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
great length and gone through the judgments of the courts
below and the evidence on record.
It is true that as per the prosecution story, a very
large quantity of opium had been recovered from the sole-
respondent. However, we find from the judgment of the High
Court that there is a clear doubt as to the recovery of the
opium and whether the opium allegedly recovered had been
kept in proper custody as it is the case of the prosecution
that the contraband that had been sealed bore the impression
'HS' but the seals that were detected at the time of opening
of samples bore the impression 'GS'. It may be stated that
'HS' represented Harinder Singh Chahal, D.S.P. who is
alleged to have sealed the opium and was the investigating
officer. We also find that there was no reason whatsoever
for Harinder Singh Chahal to have got police officers from
Police Station Ahmedgarh and Dhuri though the raid had been
organised within the area which comes under the jurisdiction
of Police Station Malerkotla. Mr. Seeraj Bagga, the learned
counsel for the appellant-State has pointed out that both
these police stations also fell within the area of
Malerkotla. Be that as it may, the suggestion of the
defence is that Inspector Iqbal Singh, S.H.O., Police
Station, Malerkotla had refused to join the raiding party as
he did not want to falsely implicate any innocent person.
We also find from the High Court judgment that mala fides
had been alleged by the respondent against Harinder Singh
Chahal and the finding of the High Court is that these mala
fides have been proved.
In view of the aforesaid findings of fact, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]
NEW DELHI AUGUST 19, 2009.