SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAJJAN Singh petitioner was brought to trial under Section 9 of the Opium Act for having been found in possession of 40 kgs. of opium on October 2 1977. He was convicted of the said charge and according sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained by a considered judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated September, 23, 1980. He has now come up by way of revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is a typical one of personal recovery. On 2nd of October, 1977, Sub -Inspector Ajit Singh alongwith Assistant Sub -Inspector Sarup Singh and the other officials was present on the road leading to Shahbpura. In connection with patrol duty. Or receipt of secret information there, Sub -Inspector Inspector Ajit Singh organised a raiding party and raked the farm house (Behk) of the petitioner. The petitioner was intercepted in the train gate of his farm house and at that time, he was carrying a bag on his right shoulder. The Sub -Inspector searched the person of the petitioner and 40 kgs. of opium wrapped in a glazed paper, was recovered from bag. After completing the formalities, a sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found the same to be of opium vide his report, Exhibit P.D. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Assistant Sub -Inspector Sarup Singh P.W.1, and Sub -Inspector Ajit Singh, P.W. 2. Both the courts below on critical appraisal have accepted their testimony.

(3.) MR . Ajmer Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, could not, challenge the testimony of the aforesaid official witnesses. He, however, placed reliance on a decision in Hari Singh v. The State, 1974 CLR 482. A close analysis of the judgment, however, would show that therein the evidence of the official witnesses was found to be discrepant and cot -pied with the fact that there was no independent witness, benefit of doubt was accorded to the petitioner. Herein it cannot be said that the situation is identical. The alleged discrepancies in the evidence are nothing but what may be labelled as discrepancies of truthful witnesses deposing after a long time. The insignificant discrepancy in which the Sub -Inspector offered himself for search is the only infirmity sought to be pointed out in the evidence. This is merely a financial type of criticism which does not in any way dislodge the broad prosecution story and the mode and manner of the recovery -of 40 Kgs. of opium from the petitioner.