MOKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was apprehended on 10.10.1980 by police party headed by A.S.I. Gulzar Singh and consisting of Head Constable Gurdev Singh and others, which was going for some official duty and for patrol from village Narinderpura towards Railway Station of that village. Near the bridge of a minor in the area of that village, the petitioner tried to run behind but could not succeed. Person of the petitioner was searched and from the bag carried by him, opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered and it weighed 5 kgs. Sample of 10 grams was separated and on chemical analysis, it was found to be opium. Recovery memo Ex.PA was prepared vide which this opium was taken into possession. Test report of the opium is Ex.PD. On receipt of ruqa Ex. PB FIR was registered. After trial, the petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court and his only sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine and rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine were maintained.

(3.) THE discrepancies pointed out to the Sessions Court have been explained in the judgment on the ground that the recovery took place on 10.10.1980 and both the witnesses appeared in the trial Court on 9.12.1982 and, therefore, due to passage of time human memory has faded and nothing turns on these discrepancies. This sort of explanation is always taken resort to by the prosecution. In this case the witnesses appeared in the Court after more than two years of the recovery and in this lapse of time petitioner cannot be said to be at fault and if discrepancies have crept in the benefit has to be given to the petitioner and not to the prosecution on the grounds stated. The latest trend of criminology is to expedite the trial and it is no excuse on the part of the prosecution that the trials are delayed and prosecution witnesses are examined after lapse of so much period and then to argue that the discrepancies pointed out are due to fading of memory.