KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner bas been convicted under section 9 of the Opium Act for having been found in possession of 1 kg. of opium on September 4, 1982 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and payment of fine of Rs 100/-.

(2.) What has been taken to have been established against him is that when a police party consisting of P. W. 2 Sohan Singh, Head Constable and P.W. 1 Pritam Singh, Constable, was passing through village Bhaini Fatta on cycles and had reached near Joga canal bridge, it noticed the petitioner coming from the opposite direction with a Jhola in his hand. The movements and reaction of the petitioner aroused the suspicion of the party and he was apprehended. On personal search conducted by H. C. Sohan Singh, one kilogram of opium was recovered from his Jhola. After separating the sample weighing about 10 grams, the opium was sealed into two parcels with the seal bearing the impression of SS and the signatory chit of Pritam Singh. The parcels were taken into possession vide Memo Exhibit P.A. Ruqqa Exhibit P.C was also sent by Sohan Singh for registration of a case against the petitioner. On return to the police station the case property was deposited with Moharrir Head Constable Gurnam Singh with the seal intact. As a result of the analysis Ex. PE the Chemical Examiner found the sample to be opium. With the completion of the investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial with the result already indicated in the opening part of this judgment.

(3.) All that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the version of the P.Ws. i.e., Sohan Singh and Pritam Singh, does not deserve credence as there are some discrepancies in their statements. What has been highlighted by the learned counsel is that though the time of sending the Ex. PC as mentioned therein was 12 30 p.m. yet the police party could not reach that place, i.e. near Joga canal bridge if the time as deposed to by the P.Ws. is calculated in the light of their movements through different villages and, therefore, the prosecution version becomes highly doubtful. Another discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel is that while Sohan Singh P.W. has stated that the investigation was carried out while sitting on the canal bridge, the other P. W. namely Pritam Singh has stated that it was done while the police, party was sitting on the ground. I, however, find no weight in these submissions of the learned counsel. It is a matter of common knowledge that power of observation, memory and recapitulation differs from man to man and the memory faints with the passage of time. The statements of these witnesses were recorded a long time after the date of recovery. Similarly these witnesses could not be expected to remember and depose about the such time spent by them in a particular village or while traveling from one village to another. Having perused the two judgments concurrently holding the petitioner guilty, I find no infirmity in the same. Thus this petition has to fail and is dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is already on bail for the last about two years, I do not see any justification in sending him back to jail. I therefore set aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him but raise the sentence of fine from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1500/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Petition partly allowed.