HANSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepore and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Further rigorous imprisonment for six months was also ordered in case of default of payment of fine. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The petitioner has now moved this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 28th September, 1980, Sub Inspector Lakhbir Singh along with two other police officials was going to village Pir Ke Khangarh. When the police party reached near the turning of Village Tibbi Kalan the accused was accosted there. He was apprehended on suspicion. On his search. 10 kgs of opium was recovered from him 10 grammes of opium was separated as sample. The sample and the remaining bulk of opium were separately scaled and taken into possession after preparing usual seizure memos. The sealed parcel of the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner who. opined the same to be opium. To support the prosecution story, only S.I. Lakhbir Singh appeared in the witness -box. In spite of several opportunities being given to the prosecution, no other prosecution witness was produced. Ultimately, the Court closed the prosecution evidence. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosection allegations.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the present case it will not be safe to convict the petitioner on the solitary statement of S.I. Lakhbir Singh. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State argued that there is no provision of law that the conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the solitary statement of a witness as the evidence has to be judged by its quality and not quantity. In support of his contention he has cited Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D. N. Mehta, Assistant Collector of Customs, AIR 1971 SC 28 wherein it was remarked :