STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 27th May, 19109 ASI Harbhagwan of Police Station Kot-Ise-Khan accompanied by other police officials was patrolling the area when near the canal bridge in the revenue jurisdiction of village Lohara he apprehended Surjit Singh respondent on suspicion and effected his personal search after observing due formalities 2500 grams of opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from his possession out of which a sample of 10 grams was taken out and was scaled in a packet. The remaining opium was also scaled in a parcel and recovery memo was prepared. Case was got registered against the respondent and sample was sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ex. PD found the contents of the sample as opium. The respondent was tried for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was found guilty by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zeera. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Against the judgment recording his conviction the respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and the conviction and sentence of the respondent were set aside vide judgment dated November 14, 1981. It is this judgment which has been assailed by the State of Punjab by way of the present appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Sh. Randhir Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Pb. for the appellant, Shri R. S. Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the records.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, cannot be accepted in view of the subsequent authorities i.e. Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1981 (Volume XII) Recent Laws 11 and Amarjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Criminal Casts 170. In these cases it was held that link evidence was not complete in the absence of an affidavit of the functionary in the office of the Chemical Examiner to whom the sample had been delivered by the constable. These authorities are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.