NAGINDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAGINDER Singh has challenged his conviction under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, when under he has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default three month's further rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution may briefly be stated. On 16th January, 1977(sic), S. I. Bal Kishan along with other Police and Excise officials was present in village Takhtpura, where he received a secret information that Naginder Singh was an opium seller and if a raid on his house he conducted, opium was likely to be recovered. Thereupon, the said (sic) accompanied by Excise and Police officials went to the house of the Petitioner in village Rania, but before hand he had joined Karnail singh and Sher Singh P.Ws. of the village, to witness the contemplated recovery. At the house of the accused, his daughter Amar Kaur was present but he was not found present there. On search of the house, a tin lying under the heap of cotton, in the back room of the house was discovered. It contains 8 3/4 kilogram of opium. In that very search of the house, 22 bottles of illicit liquor wrapped up in gunny bag were recovered, in another portion of his house, of course again in the presence of Amar Kaur daughter of the Petitioner. Aftar necessary investigation, the police put up two separate challans, one under Section 6l(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and the other under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, against the Petitioner and his daughter Amar Kaur.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Session. Judge was in error in ignoring the decision of his colleague in a(sic) case put forward on the same recovery, the same raid, supported by the same evidence and against the same accused. He further maintained that after the acquittal of the accused in the excise case the State did not file any appeal against that order to this Court and that judgment had become binding between the accused and the State as far as the recovery of illicit liquor was concerned. He has taken me through that judgment and it is interesting to note, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in that appeal chose to accept the prosecution case as a whole inasmuch as he did not doubt the recovery on the evidence of the witnesses. He went on to observe as follows :