Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghubir vs State Of Hry on 16 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-357-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 16, 2023
Raghubir
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana.
Vivek Puri, J.
Present revision petition has been preferred
against the judgments passed by the Courts below vide
which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 13-A
of the Public Gambling Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.
400/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of ten days.
The petitioner was initially convicted and
sentenced by the learned trial Court in terms of the
judgment dated 19.05.2006. The appeal preferred by him
was also dismissed in terms of the judgment dated
24.11.2006.
Briefly, the FIR has been registered against the
petitioner on the score that he was indulging in gaming by
1 of 5
CRR-357-2007 (O&M) -2-
means of figures and numbers. A secret information was
received against the petitioner by Inspector Bimla Devi,
PW1. Head Constable Mahabir Singh, PW2 was nominated
as a bogus punter. On the receipt of the signal from the
bogus punter, the petitioner was apprehended and the
incriminating articles were recovered.
None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
The presence of the petitioner or his counsel could not be
procured despite issuance of notice. Consequently, the
record has been perused to examine the legality and validity
of the judgments passed by the Courts below.
The perusal of the grounds of revision indicate
that primarily the judgments have been challenged on the
score that no independent witness was joined by the raiding
party. The statements of the witnesses are discrepant on
some aspects of the case. There is a discrepancy with regard
to the time consumed in completing the writing work as
emerging in the statements of the witnesses. The statement
of PW1 Inspector Bimla Devi indicates that it took about one
hour to complete the writing work, whereas, PW2 Head
Constable Mahabir Singh has stated that it took about two
hours to complete the writing work. PW1 Inspector Bimla
Devi has also stated that the proceedings were conducted
while sitting on the official vehicle, whereas PW2 Head
Constable Mahabir Singh has stated that the same were
2 of 5
CRR-357-2007 (O&M) -3-
recorded while sitting on a chair and bench. It has been also
alleged that PW1 Bimla Devi had deposed that the petitioner
was at a distance of about 200 steps from the police party,
whereas the other witness has given the distance to be
15/16 steps only. Besides, it has also been projected that
the complainant was herself the investigating officer in the
instance case.
Learned State counsel has contended that the
version against the petitioner has been duly narrated by
PW1 Inspector Bimla Devi. Her deposition has corroborated
by the deposition of PW2 Head Constable Mahabir Singh
and the documents proved on record. There cannot be any
bar to base the conviction on the basis of the statements of
the official witnesses and the discrepancies are insignificant.
The judgments of conviction have been correctly recorded by
the Courts below and adequate sentence has been imposed.
During the course of the proceedings in the trial
Court, the prosecution had examined two witnesses. Both
the witnesses have deposed in a fairly and satisfactory
material on all the material aspects of the matter and have
also proved on record the material documents pointing
towards the guilt of the petitioner.
The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded
on the score that no independent witness has joined at the
time of recovery. The deposition of the official witness cannot
3 of 5
CRR-357-2007 (O&M) -4-
be viewed with distrust or suspicion merely because of their
official status unless and until there are cogent grounds
therefor. There is no provision of law which requires the
presence of the independent witness at the time of search of
a suspect. Moreover, in the event much time has been
consumed in making an effort to join the public witness, it
might have frustrated the purpose of the raid.
The discrepancies as pointed out in the petition
are inconsequential and minor in nature. It is significant to
note that the occurrence took place on 09.06.2003 and the
statements of the witnesses have been recorded after a lapse
of period of about three years on 25.03.2006. A few minor
discrepancies are bound to appear in the statements of the
witnesses due to lapse of time. A person is not expected to
remember even the minute facts with mathematically
certainty after a lapse of time. However, both the witnesses
have deposed in a fairly and satisfactory manner on all the
material and significant aspects of the instant case.
Consequently, the discrepancies as pointed out are
inconsequential in nature and do not in any manner effect
the merits of the case.
Lastly, it may be mentioned here that there is
nothing to indicate unfairness or bias in the mind of the
PW1 Inspector Bimla Devi, who had conducted the
investigation against the petitioner. There is nothing to
4 of 5
CRR-357-2007 (O&M) -5-
indicate that she was in any manner biased or prejudiced
against the petitioner, which might have prompted her to
falsely implicate him in the instant case.
In these set of circumstances, no illegality or
irregularity is made out in the judgments passed by the
Courts below, finding no merit in the revision and the same
being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
January 16, 2023 (Vivek Puri)
vkd Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
