1981 Supreme(MP) 143

K. N.Shukla, J.
State of M.P. v. Shavsingh.
Cl. A. No. 474 of 1976 (I); Decided on 25-2-1981.

Headnote:(1) Opium Act, 1978 -- S. 9 (a) -- offence under -- when made out-procedure of raid and seizure suspiciousd`relevant roznamcha entries not produced --prosecution story doubtful -- offence not made out.

        (2) Criminal Trial -- relevant roznamcha entries not produced -- prosecution story becomes doubtful.

        (3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 134 -sole testimony of police officer when liable to bed`rejected -- punch witnesses turned hostile -- not a valid ground for the purpose -- his own statement making the story doubtful -- such statement cannot be acted upon.

        In appeal the learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to the respondents on the ground that the sole testimony of the investigating Officer could not be used for convicting the respondents particularly when there was no corroboration to the statement of the investigation Officer.

        Held: After perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the appellant judgment, I am of opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge could be a reasonable one in view of the nature of the prosecution evidence. The two panchas witnesses had turned hostile. This happens usually and this by itself could not be a valid reason for rejecting the sole testimony of a police officer. But then: are certain snags in the statement of M. S Tomar (PW 4) to which the learned Sessions Judge addressed himself and according to me he had reasons to do so. The whole procedure or the raid and seizure appears to be suspicious. Prosecution did not adduce the Roznamcha entries about the information on which the Station House Officer M. S. Tomar acted. Roznamcha entries about the movement of the Station House Officer along with the Panchas was also not produced. Curiously the Station House Officer who claims to have sci7ed the opium from the possession of the respondents from a lonely place at dark night had not carried any scales or .weight with him and yet the seizure memo showed the exact weight of the opium seized by him. On these facts there was sufficient reason to raise doubt about the truth of the story as put forth by the prosecution. The inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, could not be said to be unreasonable. Appeal dismissed.