Accordingly, he was companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
The police version was this while some of the police personnel were returning after patrol duty they came across the respondent near the railway crossing at Kanod village Sanhewal in Ludhiana district .
Of opium wrapped in glazed papers on 11.10.1984.
He further said that he was taken from his house on the early morning of 11.11.1984 and brought to the police station and foisted the case on him.
The State of Punjab challenges the said verdict of the High Court in this appeal by special leave.
On companypletion of the investigation the police laid the charge sheet against the respondent.
On seeing the police he tried to run away from the scene and then the police felt suspicious about him and intercepted him.
Prosecution examined Head Constable Dhian Singh as PW1 and Head Constable Ranji Dass as PW2.
The substance of the allegation against him was that he was found in possession of 4.5 kg.
PD is the report of the Chemical Examiner.
The sample was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, who, after testing the same, reported that it was opium.
The companyviction and sentence passed on an accused were resultantly quashed on that ground alone.
Respondent filed a revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The police officials separated ten grams of Opium as a sample and put it in a matchbox and sealed it.
When a search was companyducted the police companyld seize the companytraband article Opium from him.
The Sessions Court upheld the companyviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by him.
The respondent was charge sheeted by the police for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Court of a Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Ludhiana.
Two police personnel Mr. Satpal Singh and Mr. Sohan Lal produced affidavits regarding the role played by them in forwarding the sample to the Chemical Examiner.
The evidence of a policeman was tendered in a criminal trial by means of an affidavit but it was number accepted by the High Court and companysequently the entire prosecution case was thrown over board.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
When the respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure For short the Code he repudiated the allegations made against him and put forward a version that the police nurtured vengeance towards him for number obliging them by becoming a witness in another case.
According to the respondent the police had falsely companycocted the present case against him to teach him a lesson.
