NIRMAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIRMAL Singh, driver and Kuldeep Singh, Conductor truck No. RHL 5427, were challaned under Section 9 of the Opium Act Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat convicted both of them under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They filed appeals against the order of their convictions and sentences, which were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and dismissed. This criminal revision has been filed by Nirmal Singh only.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 12th July, 1973 at about 4.10 P.M., Assistant Sub -Inspector Jagir Singh received secret information at Police Station Saddar Panipat, that truck No. RHL 5427 loaded with Poppy husk was standing on the G.T. Road near Gohana Road. Assistant Sub -Inspector Jagir Singh accompanied by one Head Constable, five constables and Des Raj and Dhan Singh, PWs, and Hari Chand started towards the spot Another Head -constable and one constable met them in the way and they were also joined. The truck was found standing on the road about 1 1/2 furlong from Gohana road towards Delhi loaded with 101 bags. Both the accused were sitting in the truck. Nirmal Singh petitioner was sitting at the steering of truck. The bags contained poppy husk and each bag contained 40 Kgs of poppy husk. Samples were taken from each bag. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who reported that the same were of poppy husk. Consequently both the accused were chalaned.

(3.) THE word "possess" in Section 9 of the Opium Act connotes conscious possession. Possession with knowledge is an essential ingredient of Section 9 of the Opium Act. Physical possession, without knowledge, cannot amount to an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. By virtue of Section 10 of the Act, when the prosecution proves that the accused had dealt with the opium or has its physical custody, then he has to show that he had no knowledge of the contents of the article.