BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was tried by the learned Additional Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Karnal. The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 11-3-1987. Aggrieved by the above said judgments, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the prosecu­tion case are that SI Phool Chand alongwith ASI Attar Singh, ASI Om Prakash and Constables Satbir Singh, Ratan Singh and Surinder Kumar on 21-5-1984 were present near Sugar Mill, Karnal. They were patrolling the area. Secret in­formation was received that one person would be coming from the side of village NagJa Begha and would be in possession of opium. Ranjit Singh a public witness was present and was joined in the raiding party. A picket was held and after some time the petitioner was seen coming from the side of village Nagla Begha. He was stopped. The petitioner as carrying a bag with a string in his right hand. It was checked and found to be containing opium in a glazed paper. The contents were weighed and found to be 1400 grams. The petitioner was not in possession of any licence or a per­mit. 10 grams was taken as representative sample. The representative sample and rest of the opium were converted into separate parcels and sealed. Both the packets were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. Seal after use was given to Ranjit Singh.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed a charge against the petitioner for the of­fence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined Ranjit Singh P. W. 1 and SI Phool Chand P. W.2. ASI Attar Singh was given up as not necessary. The prosecution evidence was put to the petitioner in the form of different ques­tions. The petitioner denied the recovery of opium from his person and stated that he has falsely been implicated. He did not produce any defence. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence held that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act followed by the order of sentence. He preferred an appeal but the learned Addi­tional Sessions Judge agreed with the find­ings of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition.