KISTOOR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dt. 18.08.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Criminal Appeal No. 7/1993 affirming the judgment and order dt. 15.01.1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No. 333/1986 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sec. 4/9 of Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default whereof to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Asharam (PW -1), Criminal Assistant, Office of S.P., Barmer, lodged an FIR to the effect that on 19.09.1985, at about 06.05 a.m., he received an information from his mukhbir that Kistoor Singh and Chhog Singh, r/o village Deemri were keeping opium in their possession. On this information, he reached there with the police party where he found Kistoor Singh and Chhog Singh. When the shop was searched in their presence, two bags were found containing 1.300 gm and 1 kg. opium, which was recovered and after taking 30 gm. sample from each bag and sealing the same, both the persons were arrested and were taken to the police station.

(2.) ON the basis of the said report, the police registered the case and commenced investigation. After investigation, the police filed charge -sheet against the petitioner -accused and Chhog Singh. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed charge under Sec. 4/9 of the Opium Act against the petitioner -accused and Chhog Singh to which they denied and claimed trial. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and claimed the prosecution evidence as false and examined Khangar Ram (DW -1) in defence.

(3.) BEING aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and order dt. 15.01.1993, the petitioner -accused preferred appeal before the learned appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dt. 18.08.1994.