DARBARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the conviction and sentence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. On 18.1.1983 while the police party were patrolling, it spotted the petitioner who was carrying a head-load. He was accosted and search was conducted. It revealed that the gunny bag on the head of the petitioner contained 12 Kg. opium. It was duly sealed, and prosecution was initiated. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default R.I. for two months. The accused-petitioner took the matter to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction. He, however, reduced the sentence to R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for one month. Against that conviction and sentence, present revision is filed.

(2.) ON merits, it may be said that the prosecution has led evidence of the patrolling party. The trial Court believed the evidence of these police officials. The argument that an independent witness should have been associated while conducting the search, had not appealed to the trial Court. The trial Court was of the view that the spotting of the accused in this case was by the patrolling party, and it was not possible for the patrolling party to secure any independent witness at such time and place. He, therefore, declined to discard the testimony of the police official solely on the ground that some independent witness had not been associated while conducting search and attachment of the contraband. Certain minor discrepancies had been found to have no effect on the prosecution story.

(3.) IN this revision, nothing is brought before me to show that the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below was contrary to the record, or was as a result of mis-reading of legal provisions. I find nothing wrong in the conviction of the petitioner.