“… The authorised officer, therefore, held that the nonapplicant had failed to prove that he had no knowledge of commission of offence in relation to the property found. This Court has, therefore, gone through the statements of not only the witnesses mentioned above, but also the statements of persons seizing the property. The statements of non-applicant and his witnesses including the driver and helper of the tractor fairly establish that the timber did not belong to the non-applicant nor was it being carried to any place at the instance of the nonapplicant. The evidence sufficiently establishes that the tractor was sent by the son of the non-applicant to village Basaha to transport personal belongings of Neelkant. In spite of it, there are certain discrepancies on non-vital matters in the statement. In a Court of law, those discrepancies would be no consequence. Even if it be held that those discrepancies may create suspicion about the truthfulness of the story, suspicion by itself would not be enough to discredit the entire evidence of these persons. It was open to the State to adduce evidence to establish to the contrary, which has not been done. Under the circumstances, a Court of law acting independently would not be able to take any different view of the matter than the one taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.”
