BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE on patrol in the town of Moga, A.S.I. Gulab Singh noticed accused Baldev Singh coming along Gandhi Road towards its inter -junction with G.T. Road on 27th of May, 1982. At the sight of the police party he suddenly sat down on one side, which raised the suspicion of the A.S.I. Accordingly, accused Baldev Singh was apprehended and his person was duly searched by the said A.S.I. On said search, 500 grams of opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from cloth bag, Exhibit P.1, which the accused was then carrying. Sample was taken out of it and both the sample as well as the remaining built of opium were duly sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit P.A. Ruqa, Exhibit P.B., was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal first information report, Exhibit P.B./1, was recorded. The sample was duly sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide his report Exhibit P.X., found the same to be that of opium with morphine content as 7.0 per cent. Consequently, Baldev Singh was challaned and tried before Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga, who vide his judgment dated 18th of October, 1984, convicted him under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Appeal was preferred against the said judgment and that was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 10th of January, 1985. Now this revision petition has been moved on behalf of petitioner Baldev Singh.

(2.) MR . Ranjit Sharma, learned Counsel on behalf of revision -petitioner, could not point out any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in dealing with this case at any stage. Both the witnesses of the prosecution with regard to alleged recovery have made consistent, straightforward and convicting statements. There is nothing on the record, which may be taken to be sufficient for discarding their sworn testimony. The contention of non -association of any independent witness in the instant case cannot be taken to be of much value. As is clear from its facts, it is a case of chance recovery and there was no scope for association of private persons. Apprehension and personal search of the accused could not possibly be postponed for that purpose. No animus against the accused has even been suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses and the mere fact that they happened to be official witnesses is no ground to discard their statements.

(3.) NO discrepancy touching any material particular of the case could be pointed out. No doubt there are some minor discrepancies, but they, on the other hand, confirm that the witnesses are not tutored ones. Such discrepancies should be considered to be an embroidery on the framework of truth, because no two persons can possible make verbatim similar statements after lapse of time. Statements of the witnesses in this case were recorded after lapse of more than six months.