KHUSHAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 16/5/1991 of Shri R.N. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the petitioners appeal against his conviction and sentence recorded by the-trial Coun under section 9 of the Opium Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows; on 11/5/1985, Assistant Sub-Inspector Satyawan along with Rajpal, Raj Singh, Mehar Singh, Satpal and Miya Singh, constables, was present for patrolling at the Bus Stand of village Garhi. When the police party was going from link road Garhi, the petitioner was seen coming from the side of G.T. Road. He was carrying a bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he turned back. It aroused the suspicion of the police. Thereupon he was apprehended. The bag was found to contain 10 kilo 600 grams of opium wrapped in a polythene paper. 500 grams of opium was separated as sample and it was scaled into a parcel. The remaining opium was also sealed into a separate parcel with the seal of SS. The seal after use was handed over to Constable Raj Singh. Intimation was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which case was registered against the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the independent witnesses present op the Bus Stand had refused to join the investigation. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial. He was charged under section 9 of the Opium Act He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against the petitioner, examined P.W.1, Assistant Sub-Inspector Mehar Singh, P.W.2, Constable Raj Pal, P.W. 3 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satyawan and P.W. 4 Constable Bhim Singh. In his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He alleged that he was coming from Delhi to Hissar and when the bus reached at Hansi, and unclaimed bag was found in it. It was suspected to contain a bomb. The police was called and the petitioner was falsely implicated.

(3.) Mr. T.S. Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent have been heard at length and the record of the case has also been carefully gone through. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four points to assail the impugned judgment. His first contention is that the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner has not been proved to be opium. His second contention is that the formal evidence tendered by the prosecution by way of affidavit is defective and, therefore, link evidence is missing. The third contention is that the prosecution has not been able to pin point the place, date and time of occurrence. The fourth contention is that due to the failure of the prosecution to join proved the case against the petitioner beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and in this context he urged that the statements of the official witnesses do not deserve any credence.