BISHNU Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned ADJ Patiala in Sessions Case No. 129 of 89 dated 4.8.1989.

(2.) The accused-appellant has been charged for an offence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the case of the prosecution the SI of CIA Staff (Railways) Patiala was present at the railway station Rajpura along with HC and 3 other constables. Train No. 49 UP Hawrha Express came to the platform at about 6.10 a.m. When the police was checking the passengers the accused Bishnu was found coming towards them with a basket in his hand. On seeing the police he turned back giving rise to suspicion. Then he was apprehended and was told that the basket was sought to be searched and whether he would like it to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer but the accused stated that he has no objection to be searched by the police. Then the said basket was searched and it was found that in a small compartment of the basket opium was wrapped in a glazed paper which weighed 1 kg 200 grams. The police took out a sample and sealed it and the remaining was also kept separately and was sealed. On the basis of the report a case was registered and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. After committal the learned ADJ framed charges against the accused under section 18 of the Act. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution the accused was examined under section 313 Code Criminal Procedure but the accused has not led any evidence in defence. On a consideration of the evidence of the prosecution the learned ADJ, Patiala convicted the accused under section 18 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. Aggrieved by the same the accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence does not support the case of the prosecution and the solitary evidence of PW2 cannot be believed in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. It is therefore to be seen whether the accused was rightly convicted.