SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision, Surjit Singh petitioner assails his conviction under section 9 (a) of the Opium Act. The learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, or, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, not only upheld his conviction but affirmed his sentence.

(2.) ON 11.7.1977 Sub -Inspector Surjit Singh accompanied by some other police officials, Mohd. Hanif Lambardar and Pritam Singh, member Panchayat was present in the area of village Jamalpur. Raving received secret information that Surjit Singh was in possession of contraband opium and if a raid was carried out, opium could be recovered, Sub Inspector sent ruqa Exhibit P.C., to the police station, on the basis of which a formal First Information Report, Exhibit C/1 was recorded. A raid was, carried out at the tea stall of the petitioner and when he was interrogated by the Sub Inspector, he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 5 kgs. of opium wrapped in a glazed paper from the specified place of concealment. After, necessary formalities the sample taken was sent to the Chemical Examiner which was found to be opium. The prosecution examined Pritam Singh P.W. 1. Assistant Sub -Inspector Surjit Singh, PW 2 and Sub -Inspector Surjit Singh PW 3, in support of its case. The petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false complicity in the case. Gurcharan Singh and Gurbux Singh were examined in defence.

(3.) IN the revisional jurisdiction, it is only wasteful to traverse the identical grounds all over again. It suffices to say that no meaningful challenge could be posted at all to the merits of the case and the testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner's half -hearted challenge was only with regard to matters entirely collateral and peripheral. The identical arguments which were raised before the Appellate Court have now been repeated before me. It suffices to say that for the reasons recorded in paragraphs Nos. 4 to 7 of the Appellate Court's judgment with which I entirely agree, I do not find any merit therein.