MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is filed against the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 1985 dated January 9, 1987 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira, whereunder the accused petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 9 of Opium Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the Head Constable and four other police officials were on patrol duty at bus stand Parojwala on March 5, 1983. At that time, they received information that the accused is said to have selling poppy husk. Thereupon, the police party went to the house of the accused petitioner and on the basis of his statement, recovered 10 bags of poppy husk from the field of the accused. The sample of the same was taken and the poppy husk was also seized. After completion of the investigation, the State filed charge-sheet in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Zira. A charge under section 9 of the Opium Act had been framed against the accused-petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined two witnesses and marked documents. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira convicted the accused as stated above and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the above referred criminal revision in this Court.

(3.) I have perused the record and gone through the evidence on the file. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. As rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there is no animus on the part of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to falsely implicate the accused by planting a case against him. It is not easy for then to secure such a huge recovery in order to implicate the accused. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was rightly convicted by the Courts below and I do not find any grounds warranting interference in the orders of conviction.