GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdial Singh, petitioner, has filed the present revision petition to challenge the judgment dated 4.6.1988 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed before her to challenge the conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 4.2.1988 sentencing the petitioner to two and half years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

(2.) On 19.2.1991, HC Dalbir Singh while on routine patrol duty in the Illaqa had apprehended the petitioner and from the gunny bag which was in possession i recovered 10 Kgs. of Opium wrapped in a glazed paper. From the recovered Opium, 50 Gins. was taken as sample and sealed separately from the recovered Opium. A formal report Ex. PB/1 was recorded in Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar and after receipt of the report Ex. PK of the Chemical Examiner, the accused was challaned. After completion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. His appeal to challenge the conviction was dismissed.

(3.) In Revision, the conviction is sought to be assailed on the grounds that only junior police officials have been associated in the investigation and the entire recovery has been witnessed by the officials of the level of Head Constable and Constables and, therefore, it was not safe to base the conviction on their testimony. It was also urged that in case this argument do not find favour, the time which has elapsed between the apprehension of the accused and the hearing of this revision is so large as to warrant the release of the petitioner on probation. The first ground on which the judgment is sought to be assailed has got to be rejected straightway. The mere fact that witnesses does not happen to be connected or highly placed is no ground for accepting or rejecting their testimony. The Courts below have after scrutinising the evidence of witnesses found no discrepancy which would render their testimony unreliable. Shri H.S. Giani, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out specifically any circumstance which would enable me to interfere with this finding returned by the Courts below. This argument, has therefore, to be rejected.