Issues for consideration :
(i) Whether the conviction, solely on the basis of official witnesses is sustainable in the instant facts?
(ii) Whether the delay of nearly 3 years in filing the challan can be said to be materially affecting the correctness of the judgement of the lower court as also the impugned judgement?
Abkari Act – s. 8 – Conviction under:
Held : No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (official witnesses) – In the instant case, conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses cannot be faulted with – Delay was in two aspects according to appellant; one, the contraband being produced before the Magistrate and two, in the completion of investigation – Appellant was arrested on 01.10.2003 and 02.10.2003 was a holiday, therefore contraband seized was produced on 03.10.2003 – This being the uncontroverted position, the production of the seized Arrack cannot be said to be delayed – As far as submission of final report after 3 years is concerned, mere urging delay and casting suspicion on investigation without any evidence being led in furtherance cannot be sustained – Thus, appellant’s grounds to challenge the correctness of the impugned judgment fail. [Paras 26, 27, 29 and 30]
Sentence/sentencing – Modification of:
Held : Appellant arrested for carrying five litres of Arrack in his autorickshaw – Trial Court sentenced appellant to one year of imprisonment – High Court endorsed the finding of the trial Court – More than 20 years have passed since the commission of the offence, thus sentence of appellant modified to period of three months, simple imprisonment. [Para 33] Evidence – Conviction solely on basis of official witnesses: Held : If the evidence of a police officer/official witness is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground. [Para 22] Evidence – Testimony of official witnesses – Correctness of: Held : The testimonies of official witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – The correctness or authenticity is only to be doubted on “any good reason” which, quite apparently is missing from the instant case. [Para 26] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Investigation – Plea of investigation not being fair:
Held : Questioning investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case – In instant case, nothing was put forward to show that there may be a reasonable ground for the presence of bias or that there may be “a real danger of bias”. [Paras
16 and 20]
Delay/Laches:
Held : A “fair trial”, is a right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial”. [Para 28] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120: [2020] 9 SCR 245 – followed.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 : [1970] 1 SCR 457; N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India (2012) 4 SCC 653 : [2012] 2 SCR 433; Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 588 : [2013]
8 SCR 323; State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 : [2000]
5 Suppl. SCR 144; Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 674 : [2015] 6 SCR 175; Dilawar v. State of Haryana (2018) 16 SCC 521 : [2018]
5 SCR 655 – relied on.
Tahir v. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338 : [1996] 3 SCR 757; Karamjiti Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (2003) 5 SCC 291: [2003] 3 SCR 25; Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 784; A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak (1992)1 SCC 225 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.