2002 (12) TMI 662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st Class, Phillaur, on 28.09.1988. The appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed by Mr. Padam Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 14.09.1989. Hence, the present criminal revision petition. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case there is no link evidence as to when the sample of poppy husk was deposited in the Malkhana and to the identity of the sample on the basis of which the report of the Chemical Examiner has been made. It is submitted that the affidavits relied upon by the prosecution were not admissible in evidence for want of proper verification. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....haracter of the contraband recovered from the petitioner, Chemical Examiner's Report Exhibit P-F was also adduced in evidence. Further to complete the link evidence, affidavits of A.M.H.C. Raghibir Singh, M.H.C. Som Nath and Constable Jaswant Singh, Exhibits P-G, P-H and P-1, were also tendered in evidence. No independent witness was either joined or examined with the whole proceedings. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Parties at length and perused the record of the case. 6. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit Exhibits P-G, P-H and P-1, are not admissible in evidence as verification of the same is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 297(2) of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of the prosecution. The aforesaid judgment was cited before the learned Courts below and the same has been distinguished on the ground that the affidavits in the present case are based only on knowledge. A perusal of the verification reproduced above shows that the affidavits have been verified on the basis of knowledge and belief of the deponent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the affidavits are in conformity with Section 297(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Ravel Singh v. State of U.T., Chandigarh (1988) 93 P.L.R.369 : (1988)15 Cri.L.T. 112, the verification which came up for the consideration of this Court, was as under:- "I have correctly given my above statement according to my knowledge and belief ....