MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 12.8.1979, picketing was conducted by police party headed by ASI Randhir Singh of police,station Beas on the bifurcating point of the road leading to Baba Bakala from Grand Trunk road. Petitioner Mangal Singh arrived there while driving motorcycle No. DHT 3248. He was stopped and checked. On the checking conducted by the police,, 15 kilograms of opium wrapped in glazed paper was recovered from a bedding which was being carried on the pillion of the motor-bike. Twenty grains of the said commodity was separated as sample and the sample as well as the remaining bulk of opium were duly sealed and taken into possession by the police. Ruqa was sent on the basis of which present case was registered against the petitioner. Ultimately on chemical. examination, the sample was found to be that of opium resulting in prosecution of the petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act. On trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated 22.1.1987 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which he was directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Against his said conviction and sentence, Mangal Singh preferred appeal which was disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment dated May 20, 1987, without success. Petitioner Mangal Singh in turn has preferred present revision.

(2.) NO illegality, impropriety or incorrectness could be pointed out in the impugned judgment. Factum of recovery of the incriminating article stands proved on the record through consistent and trust-worthy evidence provided by ASI Randhir Singh and constable Balbir Singh. Mere fact that a person happens to be a police official is no ground for discarding his, Sworn testimony and conclusion of the Courts below that statements of the abovesaid two witnesses were trust-worthy remains unassailable. The quantity of the opium recovered also provides effective corroboration in the sense that a commodity of high value cannot possibly be procured by a petty police official nor he can possibly risk confiscation of a valuable article in this manner. In fact conviction of the petitioner has not been assailed seriously and notice was issued for sentence only. In the circumstances, I see no scope for interference so far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned.