PREM WATI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 24.12.1986 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, who confirmed the judgment and order dated 17.2.1986 passed by the court of Magistrate, who convicted and sentenced petitioner Prem Wati under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months, for having been found in possession of opium weighing 13.5 kgs. without any licence or permit on 1.1.1985.

(2.) I have gone through the records of this case with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties. Four submissions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner :- (1) That the link evidence in this case is missing. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the affidavits Ex.PE and Ex.PF sworn by Constable Ajit Singh and HC Parkash Chand. The counsel submitted that the verification in the said affidavits is not in accordance with High Court Rules and Orders and it has not been specifically stated as to which paras have been verified on personal knowledge and which paras have been verified on information. This argument is totally devoid of any merit. There is hardly one para in the affidavits and according to the deponent the contents of that para are based on his personal knowledge and information. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine the witness in the trial court. In these circumstances the first argument is without any merit. (2) It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that conviction cannot be based on the testimony of police officials. This argument does not appeal to the reason in view of the huge recovery of 13.5 kgs. of opium. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that police officials are not unnecessary witnesses and their testimony is always at par with that of non-official witnesses. The only test is rule of caution. I have gone through the statements of both the witnesses who have testified about the recovery of opium from the possession of the petitioner. There is hardly any discrepancy in their statements. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to reply why the Investigating Officer has implicated the petitioner. (3) The third submission is that the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 21 days. This circumstance alone is not fatal so long the sample had not been tampered with by the police. (4) Lastly it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seal after use was not entrusted to the independent witness. This circumstance again is not sufficient to disbelieve the story of the prosecution. On a question of fact as to whether the recovery of opium has been effected from the petitioner or not, it has already been held by the two courts. Concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed in revision.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the revision is partly allowed and the substantive sentence of the petitioner stands reduced to one year. With above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Revision partly allowed.