THURU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .I. Manjit Singh of detective staff, Pathankot, held picketing at the bridge of the hydel canal within the revenue limits of village Kotli Mughlan on the night intervening 3rd and 4th of May, 1983, accompanied by H.C. Darbari Lal and others members of police force. At about 12.30 a.m. accused Thuru Ram, who was coming down -stream was intercepted and his person was duly searched by the Sub -Inspector. On said search, substance looking like opium, which weighed 5 kgs., was recovered from the cotton bag, which was slung on his right shoulder, duly wrapped in a piece of glazed paper. Sample weighing 10 grams was separated and the sample as well as the remaining bulk were duly sealed and taken into possession by the Sub Inspector vide recovery memo. Exhibit P/A Ruqa, Exhibit P.B., was sent to Police Station Sadar, Pathankot, on the basis of which present case against the accused was registered vide formal first information report, Exhibit P.B./1. The Sub Inspector also prepared rough site plan, Exhibit P.C., of the place of recovery. The sample ultimately on chemical analysis was found to be that of opium with morphine content as 3.12 per cent vide report, Exhibit P.E. Consequently, Thuru Ram was challaned and put to trial before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, who vide his judgment dated 13th of November, 1984, convicted him under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Appeal directed against the said judgment was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide his judgment dated 15th of February, 1985, but the sentence and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of which fine the appellate Court directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Thuru Ram has now moved instant revision petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the revision -petitioner, Shri R.K. Mahajan, has failed to point out any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, although he has added that keeping in view the various circumstances of the case, the sentence, in his assessment, appears to be excessive. Both the police officials, who have come in the witness box, namely, H.C. Darbari Lal (P.W.1) and S.I. Manjit Singh (P.W.2) have fully supported the case of the prosecution and no infirmity sufficient to call for interference, particularly in revision, could be pointed out. Their statements are consistent and convincing. The mere fact that they happen to be official witnesses is no ground to discard their sworn testimony, particularly when no animous against the accused has even been suggested to any of them. The quantity of opium recovered also provides effective. corroboration in the sense that a commodity of that value and volume cannot be made readily available. Conviction of petitioner Thuru Ram, therefore, is confirmed. However, keeping in view the age of the petitioner, who by now is more than 60 years old, and the fact that he is facing the music of criminal litigation for the last about four years, his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. -, in default of payment of which fine he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. But for this modification in sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.