SHANGARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHANGARA Singh, the present revision petitioner, was tried for an offence under section 9 of the Opium Act by Shri R.C. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Against the judgment recording his conviction Shangara Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, as per judgment dated 15.5.1986 and conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained. That judgment is assailed by way of present revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case against the petitioner was that on the intervening night of 13/14th May, 1983 a police party of police station, Dehlon was holding a picket on a canal bridge in the area of village Kaind. Jaswant Singh PW was also a member of that party. At about 2.45 midnight Shangara Singh petitioner came from the side of village Bhool on a motor cycle bearing registeration No. PUM 7983. He was stopped and searched. Opium weighing 6-1/2 kilograms was recovered from his possession. 10 grams of opium was separated as sample and the remaining opium was sealed separately in a bag. Seal after use was handed over to Jaswant Singh PW. Case was got registered against the petitioner and sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, a charge sheet was drawn against the petitioner which led to his conviction.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. was that on 13.5.1983 police of Police Station Dehlon took him to the police station from his house along with his motor cycle, in the presence of Niranjan Singh Chowkidar, Bahadur Singh Lambardar, Bachan Singh Member Panchayat and Sadhu Singh Sarpanch and falsely implicated him in the case. His wife submitted an application to that effect to the village Panchayat on the same day and also sent telegrams to the Illaqa Magistrate and some other senior officers. In order to substantiate his defence, he examined three witnesses and produced some documents.