HARBHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on January 23, 1968, though the sentence was reduced from one year to six months. The charge against the appellant was that on July 31, 1968, at Ludhiana he was found in possession of two kilograms of opium without any permit.

(2.) The raid had been arranged as usual on receipt of some information by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Gurdial Singh, P.W. and he had joined 3 non-official witnesses in the investigation. Two of these witnesses were given up at the trial on the Public Prosecutor's instructions that they had been won over. One non-official witness besides the Investigation Officer of the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector has testified to the truth of the prosecution story. The only objection against Chuni Lal, P.W. is that he had appeared as a Police witness in two or three other cases before this also. The public apathy against the joining of such investigations makes it difficult for the Police to easily get respectable witnesses and where a few persons agree to join, their services have to be made use of in more than one case. Usually a number of places are searched during a raid and the same set of persons become witnesses in all the recoveries made during the same raid. The appearance of a person as a witness in one or two other cases would not, therefore, be sufficient to discredit him on that ground alone. The evidence of a Police Officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector has also to be given its due weight and cannot be lightly brushed aside. If two of the non-official witnesses had to be given up by the prosecution, it would only show that the Police cannot draw upon a very dependable section of the society. If the given-up witnesses were really truthful and reliable they would not have subscribed their hands to the memos prepared by the Police and thereafter to have refiled from what had been recorded in the memos.

(3.) I see no ground for interference in revision. The sentence awarded may appear quite lenient considering the quantity of opium recovered. Petitioner's conviction and sentence are maintained.