LAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted and convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months vide order dated 19.9. 1988 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 2.8.1990. Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 7.5.1984 SI Harbans Lal along with Gurpal Singh, SHO and other police officials in the area of Roop Nagar at a distance of half kilometer from Indo-Pak border was holding naka and at about 4.00 A.M. they heard sound of foot steps from the side of Pakistan. The petitioner along with one other person was seen coming from the side of Pakistan. SHO Gurpal Singh gave a signal with torch light to stop. SI Harbans Lal identified the petitioner in the torch light. On seeing the policy party, the petitioner threw the bundle which was being carried on his head and ran away from the spot. The other person Aad Lal was arrested by the SHO. SI Harbans Lal tried to chase the petitioner but he succeeded in running away. SI Harbans Lal along with other police officials who chased the petitioner came to the spot and searched the bundle which was thrown by the petitioner. From the bundle 20 Kgs opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered. 10 gms opium was separated as sample and the remaining opium was put into a separate tin. Sample as well as the tin were sealed with seal HL and the case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was challaned.

(3.) WHEN the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and pleaded false implication. The petitioner was called to lead evidence in defence but he did not examine any evidence.