(1.) The Petitioner Charan Singh aged 45 years, a labourer, was convicted by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Gurdaspur under section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. . The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by tile Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The present revision petition is directed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.
(2.) In brief, the prosecution allegation is that on January II, 1981, a police party consisting of Head Constable Makhan Singh, P.W. 1, Head Constable Narinder Singh P.W. 2 and some other officials went to village Gaiju Gazi for excise raids. Dalip Singh member Panchayat of that village was joined with the raiding party. It is alleged that the Police party went to the house of the petitioner who was present in the court-yard. The petitioner was interrogated and is said to have made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 8 Kgs. of opium from his residential house. The recovered item on subsequent analysis was opined to be opium. The petitioner was then prosecuted with the result above noticed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made certain submissions which may be noticed. The contention in the first instance is that the prosecution had withheld the production of Dalip Singh member Panchayat, the only independent witness of the alleged recovery. It appears that inspite of opportunities having been given, the witness was riot produced and the prosecution case was closed in regard to the witness. A perusal of the testimony of the two official witnesses also reveals that they too were not examined on the same date, the gap being more than a month. On account of this circumstance, one would not expect much contradiction or discrepancies in the testimony of these official witnesses. However, it has been rightly pointed out that according to Makhan Singh P. W. 1, it was Dalip Singh who had brought with him the 5 Kg. weight. On the other hand, Narinder Singh Head Constable P. W. 2 deposed that the 5 Kg. weight was sent for from the village. The evidence of these two witnesses is quite parrot like and does not inspire confidence. Indeed, there is no rule of law that the testimony of official witnesses is to be looked down upon on account of their official garb but on over all appreciation of all the circumstances of the case raises a grave doubt in the matter.