Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Mehra, J.

Petitioner was convicted under Section 9(1) of the Opium Act, 1878 on 30.8.1986 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default thereof, he was further ordered to undergo R.I. for four months. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 28.3.1987. Hence, this revision petition.

Briefly narrated, the prosecution case is that on January 26, 1983, ASI Pirthi Singh alongwith other police officials, was going towards village Rode and when the police party reached the bridge of water course in the area of village Rode, the accused was seen coming from southern side of the water course. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and retraced his steps. On suspicion, he was stopped by ASI Pirthi Singh with the help of other police officials and on interrogation, he disclosed his name as Amarjit Singh son of Ughar Singh, resident of Village Rode. His person was searched according to rules by ASI Pirthi Singh and opium wrapped in a glazed paper, lying in a bag hanging from his left shoulder, was recovered which on weighing was found to be 5 Kg. and 500 grams. Out of the recovered quantity, 10 grams were taken out as sample and put in a Dabi (match box) and the remaining opium was put in a Pipa tin. Both the sample parcel and bulk quantity of opium were sealed with the seal bearing impression ''PS'' and taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PA. Specimen of seal was prepared separately and the seal after its use, was entrusted to HC Sukhdev Singh. Thereafter site plan, Ex. PC, was prepared statements of the witnesses were recorded on the spot and after completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned under section 9(1) of the opium Act, 1978.

To prove its case, prosecution examined only PW1 ASI Pirthi Singh and tendered into evidence report of chemical examiner Ex. PX, and affidavits Ex. PY and Ex. PZ of Constable Harnek Singh and MHC Sant Parkash Singh, respectively.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the allegations against him and stated that his brother Paramjit Singh was declared proclaimed offender in 1972 and police used to press him for his production though he was not aware of the whereabouts of his brother and it was on this score that he was falsely implicated by the police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this case, the prosecution had examined only one witness i.e. ASI Pirthi Singh and there was no other independent corroboration. He further contended that the case property had not been produced in the Court and, therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner and the sole testimony of PW1 ASI Pirthi Singh was not sufficient to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Bheniwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argued that ASI Pirthi Singh, Investigating Officer (PW1) had been examined by the prosecution and it had no intention to withhold the evidence but its evidence was closed by order of the Court and, therefore, the prosecution could not complete its evidence in the case. He further contended that however, PW1 Pirthi Singh had proved documents i.e. testimony memo Ex. PA, ruqa Ex. PB, formal FIR Ex. PB/1, site plan Ex. PC, and the case of the prosecution was further corroborated by the report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PX as well as the affidavits Ez. PY and Ex. PZ of Constable Harnek Singh and MHC Sant Parkash Singh respectively.

I have gone through the statement of ASI Pirthi Singh who explained the prosecution story and proved the documents, namely, recovery memo Ex. PA, ruqa Ex. PB, formal FIR PB/1 and site plan Ex. PC. No doubt, the case property has not been produced but the prosecution has placed on record affidavit, Ex. PZ, of MHC Sant Parkash Singh duly attested by the learned Judicial Magistrate, who has categorically stated therein that on 26.1.1983, ASI Pirthi Singh had deposited with him one parcel of opium alongwith sample weighing 10 grams sealed with the seal bearing impression ''PS'' and the sample was sent to Chemical Examiner with seals intact vide rod No. 40, dated 31.1.1983 through constable Harnek Singh No. 277 who on 1.2.1983 had produced the receipt about it having been deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh.

There is another affidavit, EX. PY of Constable Harnek Singh that he had taken sample of case No. 33/83 on 31.3.1983 vide rod No. 40 and deposited the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh on the same day, after getting the docket issued from the office of AETC, Faridkot. He had also obtained receipt after depositing the sample in the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh which was later on handed over by him to MHC Sant Parkash Singh. Prosecution has also produced on record report of Chemical Examiner, Ex PX, showing that the sample was sent by the prosecution for its test vide No. 5559 dated 31.1.1983 and the Public AnalystcumAssistant Chemical Examiner to Government Punjab, Chandigarh gave its report declaring it to contain 3.2% Morphine. In the said report, the bill number of AETC, Faridkot has also been mentioned as 5559 dated 31.1.83 vide which the sample was forwarded and this fact clearly shows that the report pertains to the present case. Besides, from the perusal of formal FIR Ex. PB/1, recovery memo Ex. PA, ruqa Ex. PB and site plan Ex. PC, it is established that the accused was apprehended while carrying opium in question without any valid permit. Moreover, no enmity has been alleged against Pirthi Singh (PW1) which may induce him to falsely implicate the accused. Rather, there is only simple suggestion that he was deposing falsely but the same had been denied by him. No other suggestion had been put to him for any other motive about the implication of the accused whereas the accused took the plea that this brother was declared a proclaimed offender in the Naxalite movement of 1972 and police used to pressurise him for his production whereas he never knew the whereabouts of his brother and, therefore, he had been falsely implicated. But this defence taken up by the accused has not been put to PW1 Pirthi Singh. No doubt, evidence on the prosecution was closed by the order of he Court and the prosecution did not examine any other witness but at the same time, I do not find any ambiguity in the statement of PW1 ASI Pirthi Singh. So, the sole statement of ASI Pirthi Singh (PW1) is sufficient to be believed and the same can safely form the basis of conviction of the accused.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.