19 August 2009
Supreme Court
Download

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


1

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

2

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.