Keeping in view the prosecution findings, Special Judge Naipal Singh held that the prosecution had brought home the charges against Walia for offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotics act. ``Hostility of those witnesses do not affect the reliability of other witnesses,'' said the judge and relied on the evidence statements of the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer of Pratap Nagar police station.

The reliable testimony of various witnesses corroborated the statement of the IO and the SHO, the judge felt. He declined to acknowledge defence's allegations on IO Prem Nath of being biased and vengeful. ``No doubt certain motive has been suggested against Prem Nath,''he said, adding, ``but their statements are not the only evidence on record. These are corroborated by documents on record.'' The prosecution case had charged Walia of carrying the aforesaid amount of charas to Haryana through Bagichi Peerji railway station, Subzi Mandi. After receiving a tip-off, IO Prem Nath reportedly arranged for a raid and apprehended Walia.

The raiding party consisted of two public witnesses, Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Sachidanand. After apprehending Walia, the team sent one of its members, constable Vijender, to inform the SHO and ACP. On the directions of ACP R S Dahiya, Prem Nath searched Walia and found charas in his bag.

On August 14, 1992, the court ordered framing of charges against Walia, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the six years of trial, the prosecution deposed 10 witnesses. Of which, the prosecution claims, two were formal and the rest were material witnesses. Sharma and Sachidanand were, however, declared hostile by the prosecution. ``In the rising trend of the criminality and danger to the life of persons and property of the people from the criminals, it is very difficult for any person to come forward as a witness against any criminal,'' observed the judge.

The defence placed its objections during the course of the trial and condemned IO Prem Nath for falsely implicating Walia in the case. To support its claim, the defence produced three witnesses, out of which one was Walia's son.

According to the defence, Prem Nath implicated Walia since he had deposed against him in a vigilance inquiry. The inquiry was set up against Prem Nath following which he was dismissed.

Considering the tabled records, the judge observed that Walia had deposed against Prem Nath subsequent to his arrest in this case. He pronounced: ``Action taken against is only an administrative action and not a quasi-judicial action''.

The defence on its part was also unable to present the vigilance inquuiry report in the court, despite the court's repeated directions. The judge thereby refused to accept the inquiry as the conclusive findings against Prem Nath. Considering Walia's age, the judge however reduced his punishment to the minimum years and fine.