KARNAIL SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, who affirmed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate declining to accede to the request of the accused for re -examination by the Chemical Examiner of a representative sample of the opium said to have been recovered from his possession.

(2.) THE facts which have been very carefully summarised by the learned Sessions Judge are these. The petitioner Karnail Singh is being prosecuted under section 9 of the Opium Act for having been found in possession of 500 grams of illicit opium. It is common ground that the Chemical Examiner has already submitted his report about a portion of the opium sent to him for examination. When the case was ripe for arguments on 15th of February, 1966, the petitioner made an application that the "remaining bulk of opium be sent to the Chemical Examiner for ascertaining if the same was opium or not". This application was dismissed by Mr. Gaur, Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 15th February, 1966, for the simple reason that there was no provision in law to justify the prayer which was made by the accused. Before the learned Sessions Judge, it was argued that the petitioner was entitled to re -examination by the Chemical Examiner on account of the presumption which has to be raised under section 10 of the Opium Act. This section says -