Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Secret Information - Independent witness must be joined. - Recovery of working still and illicit liquor - Raid conducted by Police on receipt of secret information - House of accused in middle of village, but no independent witness joined - Cannot be believed that no body came forward to join the police - Case based on testimony of Head Constable and Con- stable who were interested in success of the case - Conviction set aside. Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 70(P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor and working still on receipt of secret information - Information was received by Police Officer at a Public place - No independent witness joined No cogent reasons given for the same - It would be unfair to base conviction solely on evidence of two Police Officials. Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 690(P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor and working still by Police on receipt of secret information - No in- dependent witness joined as required under Section 1 00(4) CLP.C. - Conviction of accused set aside. Jagsir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 693(P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor from house of accused on receipt of secret information - House in middle of village Abadi - No independent witness joined - Further, when case property was produced (components of working still), there was no identity mark or chit to indicate that it related to recovery from the accused - Conviction set aside. Sadhu Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 35(P&H) Police recovered 200 Kgs of Lahan on receipt of secret information - No independent wit- ness joined - Contention that independent witnesses were contacted but they refused to join - Names of such persons not recorded in zimni and no action taken against them under Cr.P.C. - Conviction of accused set aside. Aroor Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 433 (P&H) Recovery of illicit liquor by Police on receipt of secret information - No independent witness joined which was obligatory on part of Investigating Officer - Recovery effected at a Public place - Investigating Officer did not explain that he was not in a position to arrange an inde- pendent witness at any stage of investigation - When secret information is received, it is obligatory that independent witness be joined. AIR 1956 SC 217 distinguished. Massa Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 666(P&H) Accused found working a still for distillation of liquor. Accused apprehended in pursuance of a raid conducted by police on the basis of secret information. No member of the public joined by police in raiding party. Chowkidar joined in the raid, but failed support the prosecution version. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Police received secret information and recovered working still - No independent witness joined to avoid delay and leakage of information - Nothing to indicate that Police men had any grudge against accused - Conviction upheld - Incident occurred 15 years back - Sentence re- duced to already undergone (two months). Police received secret information and recovered illicit liquor and working still - No inde- pendent witness joined despite secret information - Accused acquitted - Not safe to convict the accused on sole testimony of police officials. Police received secret information and recovered working still, illicit liquor and lahan - Police party comprised Head Constable and Constable - No independent witness joined although such witness could be found - Not proper to believe Police version without corroboration when offence is punishable with minimum sentence. Recovery of Lahan from accused on receipt of secret information by police - No independent witness joined - No ground to acquit the accused - In case Investigating Officer had taken steps to join independent witnesses from the village, the very purpose of secret information would have been defeated as there was specific information that accused was indulging in distillation of illicit liquor. Accused found working a still. Lahan recovered. Police having prior secret information about the same. No independent witness joined in the raiding party. Conviction held unsustainable and set aside. Held, that it has to be noted that the raiding party had left the Police Station for the excise raid. Therefore, before reaching the village some independent witnesses sought to have been joined by the raiding party because there was every likelihood of detection of some excise case in that village. Police Party started from Police Station with definite Purpose of conducting raid and recovered Lahan from the accused. No body from public joined. Contention of Police that no body was prepared to join investigation is not sufficient. Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Recovery of illicit liquor by Police on secret information. No respectable person joined from the locality. Only one independent witness did not support the prosecution. Law enjoins that in case of a house search, raiding officer should join two or more independent respectable persons of the locality. Recovery of working still and lahan by Police party on receipt of secret information. No in- dependent witness joined. Accused acquitted. Statement of police officials cannot be dis- carded simply on account of their officials status. Still to remove any doubt regarding the genuineness, corroboration from independent source is required. Independent witness. Police raided the village on secret information and found running a Working Still. No independent witness joined from the village. Not safe to convict the ac- cused.