BILLU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present revision petition has been filed by Billu Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon dated December 9, 1986. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half year and pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a year. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on November 26, 1987.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on August 21, 1984, a police party comprised of Head Constable Jagir Singh and Constables Nazar Singh and Pritam Singh was going on cycles from village Bassian to Raikot. When the police party reached near the minor drain bridge, Rest House, Bassian, the petitioner was seen coming from the side of the Rest House. On suspicion, he was apprehended, his search was effected, opium wrapped in polythene bag was recovered from the bag which the petitioner was holding in his right hand. The contents were weighed and were found to be three kilograms. Representative sample of ten grams was taken. It was converted into a sealed parcel. Both the parcels were taken into possession vide the recovery memo, Rukka was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded. Rough site plan was drawn. Subsequently, representative sample was sent for chemical analysis. On receipt of the report, challan under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the petitioner.

(3.) AT the outset, it was pointed that in the present case, no public witness has been joined. It transpired during evidence that two or three public persons had passed, but they refused to join the police party. In this regard, the necessity of joining public witnesses cannot be over-emphasised. The genuine attempt should be made to join public witnesses. It is possible that in certain cases public witnesses may not be available. In some cases, they may not be willing to join the police party. It has to be considered on merits of each individual case. The position in the present case makes one to believe that all is not well with the investigation. It is not explained as to who were the public witnesses, who refused to join the investigation. It is vaguely being stated that those persons who passed were not willing to join the police party. It is, therefore, doubtful in face of what is stated above, if any such attempt was made to join the public witnesses.