LAWS(P&H)-1984-11-29

SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 29, 1984
SUKHDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition filed by Sukhdev Singh son of Buta Singh aged 45 years who was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentenced aforesaid which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, vide judgment dated January 21, 1984 though the sentence was reduced to R.I. for two years. The present Revision Petition is directed against the said decision.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution version is to the effect that on April 10,1978 a Police Party headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police Baldev Singh (P.W.3) was returning to Phul in a Jeep after some meeting in the Rest House. When the party reached on the bridge of the canal minor in the area of Mandi Rampura, the petitioner, it is stated, was seen coming on a mare carrying a gunny bag in front of him. The petitioner was stopped by Sub Inspector Swaran Singh (P.W.2) on suspicion. It is further alleged that on a search made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the gunny bag was found to contain 30 Kgs. of Opium wrapped in a glazed paper. A sample of the article was obtained and the same was taken into possession. The remaining opium was placed in two tin canisters Exhibits P.1 and P.2 which were sealed into parcels. The petitioner was taken into custody and the case was registered against him under the Opium Act. The sample on being sent for analysis was opined to be that of opium. As a result of his prosecution, and trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as already noticed.

(3.) THE above is an absolutely erroneous approach to the matter. It is not possible to understand as to how at the time of the despatch of these telegrams on April 9, 1978, the petitioner was aware of the fact that on the next day, i.e. April 10, 1978 he would be apprehended by the Police in a chance meeting at the bridge of the canal minor as is the case of the prosecution.