MANGAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Session Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appeal filed by Mangal Singh against the order of his conviction and sentence, was dismissed.

(2.) THE prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 12th October, 1970, sub -Inspector Harbhajan Singh Station House Officer Tarn Taran held nakabandi on the bridge Alladinpur at about 6 p.m. He had joined with him Excise Inspector Balkishan and Darbara Singh, P.Ws. Mangal Singh petitioner was seen coming on a motor cycle. Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh stopped him. Mangal Singh accused -petitioner was carrying a box on the carrier of his motor -cycle. The lock of the box was opened by the key produced by the accused -petitioner, and five kgs. of opium was recovered from therein. Ten grams of opium was separated from the lot recovered, as a sample and sealed. Remaining opium was also sealed. For sealing both the parcels, the seal of the Excise Inspector, bearing initials BKK, was used. On a ruqa sent by Sub -Inspector Harbhajan Singh case First Information Report No. P.D./1, was recorded. The sample of opium was sent for chemical examination from where report Exhibit P.F., which was to the effect that the sample contained no opium, was received. The Assistant Chemical Examiner also asked another sample out of the opium for further examination. Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh submitted application Exhibit P.G. before Sh. Pritam Singh Bedi, Executive Magistrate, on 9th February, 1971 and requested for taking the sample out of the sealed packet of opium. He also requested that fictitious No. 41 dated 2nd September 1971 under section 9 of the Opium Act/Police Station Tarn Taran, be recorded on the sample. The learned Executive Magistrate broke open the seal of the tin and took out a sample of Opium from the same. The sample as well as the remaining opium were separately sealed. The sample so taken, was sent to the Chemical Examiner and he found it to contain 2.8% morphine. The petitioner was challenged after necessary investigation of the case.

(3.) EXCISE Inspector Balkishan and Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh corroborated the prosecution story in all its details while Darbara Singh did not fully support the prosecution version. Darbara Singh P. W., was allowed to be cross examined at the request of the Prosecuting Sub Inspector. In Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1975 S.C. 1450, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court that: - -