SAKEER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAKEER petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act by Shri B. B. Parsoon, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad and vide judgment dated 19-12-1985 he was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the judgment Sakeer filed an appeal which was dismissed by Shri S. D. Anand, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that on 14-4-1983 Inspector Om Parkash of CIA Faridabad was present on canal bridge in the area of village Sarurpur. He was accompanied by S. I. Sarup Singh, ASI Ishar Singh and some other police officials. Zile Singh Sarpanch of village Ferozepur Kalan met the police party and was associated. In the meantime the petitioner was seen coming from the side of village Semaypur. On suspicion he was comprehended and his personal search was effected which led to the recovery of 1 kilogram 750 grams of opium from a bag which the petitioner was holding. A sample of 10 grams of opium was separated and the rest of the opium was sealed in a different parcel. Seal after use was handed over to Zile Singh PW Investigation in the case was completed and the petitioner was charge-sheeted and tried which led to his conviction as referred to above.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was absolutely no reliable evidence on record to prove the recovery of opium from the possession of the petitioner. The recovery was stated to have been witnessed by Zile Singh Sarpanch but he had not supported the case of the prosecution. He was the only independent witness joined in the party. Zile Singh deposed that he was going to village Ballabgarh where one Harijan woman of his village had died by jumping into a well, when the police party met him near Partapgarh bridge. One Head constable told him that some opium had been recovered and his signatures were required. Many persons were present at the spot. He did not know from whom the opium was recovered nor he had seen the petitioner there. He was confronted with his statement mark 'A' which he denied having made to the police. In his cross-examination by the petitioner he admitted that he was acquainted with the investigating officer as previously he was posted at Police Station, Sardar Ballab. The statement of this witness, thus, contradicted the prosecution version that the petitioner was apprehended in his presence and his personal search led to the recovery of opium from his possession.