OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POLICE party on patrol duty at Kuchpura Agond road on 19th March, 1983, apprehended accused Om Parkash carrying 1250 grams of opium. Learned trial court on 31st October, 1984 convicted him of the commission of the offence under section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 16 months. On appeal the learned Sessions judge, Karnal, vide his appellate judgment dated 8th February, 1985 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to 1 year in place of 16 months, awarded by the learned trial Court. Criminal Revision No. 532 of 1985 has been filed in this court for assailing the judgment of the court below.

(2.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police ought to have joined independent witnesses of the locality before searching the person of Om Parkash accused for recovery of incriminating opium from him and that the needful having not been done; in line with the observations made in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 305 : 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 521, the alleged recovery of incriminating article from the possession of the accused is rendered doubtful. The accused, it has been asserted, is so be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

(3.) SECONDLY it was contended that link evidence in the case being not complete, the accused was, as held in Resham Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Law Reporter 314, entitled to acquittal. Elaborating the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Exhibit PQ states that case property was brought to the Chemical Examiner by Constable Devi Ram No. 999, who has not been produced; nor his affidavit filed to this effect. Both the learned trial court as also the court of appeal, reached the conclusion that it was constable Jai Bhagwan, deponent of affidavit Exhibit PA, who had carried the case property to the Chemical Examiner and that in Exhibit PQ, name of Constable Devi Ram was wrongly mentioned. I do not think that the concurrent finding of fact, expressed by the two courts below, in this regard, can be assailed before this court in the present revision petition.