RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 17.9.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, reduced his substantive sentence from 2-1/2 years to 1-1/2 years. However, the fine was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on the night intervening 31.8.1982/1.9.1982, a police party headed by H.C. Tarlok Singh was on patrol duty and at about 7.00 a.m. apprehended the petitioner on suspicion in the area of Khalsa Kohlu Factory near Gian Ashram School, Amritsar on a bicycle. From the personal search of the petitioner a gunny bag was found which was tied with a rubber tube and it contained 25 Kgs. of opium. The Head Constable separated 20 grams of opium as a sample in a small tin and made a sealed parcel thereof. The remaining opium was separately sealed in a drummi Ex. P- 1. The entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. The bicycle was also taken into possession. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of opium. Resultantly, ruqa Ex. PC was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded by Inspector Kulwant Singh. The Investigating Officer also prepared rough site plan Ex. PD of the place of recovery. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, formally arrested the petitioner and on return to the police station the case property along with sample with seals intact was deposited with the MHC Kishan Chand. The sample of the opium was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, who declared the contents as opium. On completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate, which supplied the copies of documents to the petitioner.

(3.) ON the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and pleaded himself to be innocent. When called upon to enter into his defence, the petitioner examined Constable Santokh Singh as PW-1, his father Walaiti Ram DW-2, Sat Pal Ahlmad DW-3 and Ajaib Singh constable DW-4.