Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Recovery from Working SiIl- Proof - Since neither the mode of proof is prescribed by the statute nor is it laid down that it must be so done on the basis of the expert testimony, with great respect. I am unable to say that the testimony of the Excise Inspector must be brought within the ambit of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It follows that the prose- cution has to discharge the burden in the ordinary way to bring the recovered material within the definition laid down by law. Once that is so, one must fall back on the general rules of ap- praisal of evidence and the weight attached there to. As an abstract proposition, therefore, the prosecution can bring in even an ordinary witness in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 3, clause 13-A of the Punjab Excise Act. Nevertheless, in the present case they did bring in a witness will-versed and well-trained in the work of testing lahan. The significant thing is that neither his capacity nor his credentials on the point of opening about the ingredients of lahan was even remotely challenged. The basic rule that where a witness deposing adversely to a party is not at all challenged then his testimony may well be relied upon, consequently comes into play. This is the more so in a case where the whole stand of the petitioner was that, in fact, the incriminating material was not at all recovered from him, but has been subsequently planted. If that be the basic plank of the defence, obviously the Excise Inspector was not at all challenged with regard to either his capacity to opine about the lahan in this case or cross-examined to show that infact, what was recovered was something. Other than that