PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By this common order two criminal revision Nos. 818 of 1996 titled as Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and 961 of 1996 titled as Pipal Singh v. State of Punjab will be disposed off.

(2.) Both the petitioners along with Jagir Singh were named as an accused in case FIR No. 147 dated 14,4.1984 registered at Police Station Mamdot under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act.

(3.) Briefly stated that the prosecution case is that on 14.4.1984, ASI Harbans Lal along with companion police and B.S.F. officials had held a Nakabandi in the area of village Pojoke. At about 5.00 a.m.,, a ear bearing No, PJF-2716 was intercepted by them, which was driven by Pipal Singh petitioner, Jagir. Singh, Pritam Singh and Malook Singh were the passengers in the car. From the dickey of the car, opium was recovered. Samples of the opium were drawn and were, sont to the chemical examiner, who after analysis opined the same as having contents of Morphine 6.8%. Heavy recovery of 40 kilograms of opium has been effected from the car. Both the Courts below placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses consisting of PW.1consta hle. Mangal Singh, PW2, DSP Harbans Singh PW3 constable Sukhjit Singh and PW4 In spector Harbans Lal, besides, prosecuti on has also tendered affidavit Exhibit. PJ and, report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit,' PK. Minor discrepancies, contradictions and improvements pointed out before me cannot be accepted, as this Court being a revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence especially when the two Courts below have returned unanimous findings of facts. No legal infirmity, irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the counsel. Argument that the independent witness was not examined cannot be accepted as such a heavy recovery cannot be foisted. The lower appellate Court has also relied upon Section 10 of the Opium Act to conclude that the petitioners were in conscious possesion of opium recovered.