KAHAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19th May, 1978, at about 9 a.m., ASI Avtar Singh (PW2) who in those days was posted as Incharge of Police Post Rampura, accompanied by some constables, was present on the bridge of the minor. SI Swaran Singh who in those days was posted as Station House Officer, Rampura accompanied by some constables, reached that bridge in a jeep. SI Swaran Singh joined ASI Avtar Singh and the constables with him in his party and they left in the jeep in connection with Patrol duty. When they reached the Railway level crossing, one Teja Singh met them. SI Swaran Singh starting chatting with him. In the meantime, some person came there and supplied secret information to the Sub-Inspector. On the basis of that information, SI Swaran Singh sent Ruka Ex. PF to Police Station Rampura (Phool). On its basis formal First Information Report Ex. PF/1 was recorded by A/M. H.C. Gurdeep Singh at 10.40 a.m. SI Swaran Singh joined Teja Singh also in the raiding party which left in the jeep towards the place told by the informer. When they had covered a distance of about 1-1\2 furlongs from Sabzi Mandi of Rampura Phool, the petitioner Kahan Chand was seen coming through the fields, along a Pagdandi, On seeing the Police party the petitioner tried to retrace, but was apprehended. He was found carrying gunny bag Ex. P4 on his head. When the bag was opened, wooden box Ex.P5 was found inside it. When the wooden box was opened, 2 packets, one containing 13650 and the other 26950 intoxicating tablets were recovered 50 tablets from each packet were separated as sample. The packets and the samples were separately sealed and were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PD. The sealed samples were sent to the Government Analyst, Punjab, who, vide his report Ex. PA. found that each tablet contained 26.51 mg. of quinal Barbitone Sodium. He also found that the test for barbiturates was positive. After necessary sanction form the District Magistrate, Bhatinda for prosecution of the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted.

(2.) THE learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 13 of the East Punjab Drugs Control Act, 1949 and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Feeling aggrieved his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. He found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. Still not feeling satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE prosecution story about the recovery is supported by PW 2 ASI Avtar Singh and PW 3 SI Swaran Singh. The only independent witness who had been joined in the raiding a party was Teja Singh, but he was given up as having been won over. Of course, I am well aware of the proposition that conviction of an accused can be based upon the statements of official witnesses alone, but, in the present case, as will be discussed below, it would be unsafe to do so.