CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of conviction and sentence passed against Chaman Lal under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act. The accused was tried by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, for the offence under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 200/- (or in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment for one month). The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana rejected his appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on January 1, 1984, Head Constable Baldev Singh and three Constables including Surinder Pal Singh of Police Station Jagraon were proceeding from Village Kaonke Kalan to Village Dangian on patrol duty. They saw the accused, Chaman Lal, at about 9.20 a.m. The accused had wrapped himself with a cotton blanket (Khes). The police officials made some enquiries and thereafter conducted a search of the cotton bag hanging on the right shoulder of the accused. Opium weighing 2 Kgs. was found in the bag. Sample of opium weighing 10 gram was taken and was sealed in a separate parcel. The remaining opium was also separately sealed by the Head Constable, Baldev Singh. The incident was reported to the SHO, P.S. Jagraon, upon which a case was registered against the accused. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and after receipt of the report, a challan was filed against the accused Chaman Lal. Head Constable Baldev Singh and Constable Surinder Pal Singh proved in the trial court the recovery of the opium from the accused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987 CC Cases 252 (HC). It was held in that case that where no independent witness had joined from the locality at the time of search and seizure, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Similar view was taken in Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987 CC Cases 510 (HC). In that case the accused was alleged to have been in possession of 35 bottles of illicit liquor. Conviction was based on the evidence of official witnesses, whose statements were found to be irreconcilably contradictory on material facts. The petitioner was acquitted.