Chotta Lal alias Kukoo vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Chhotta Lal alias Kukoo petitioner was convicted under S. 9(a) of the Opium. Act and sentenced to 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3500/ by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, on 7th March, 1980. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. He has new come up in revision.

On 3rd May, 1978, SubInspector Gurnam Singh alongwith some police officials was going from village Bahadur Singh Wala to Moonak in a Government jeep in connection with excise checking. When he was on JakhepalPatran road in the area of Lehra, he received secret information and on that basis a case was registered against the accused in the police station. Thereafter Baja Singh was joined in the police party. About 11/2 hours thereafter, the accused came on a motorcycle. He was stopped and his person was searched. 10kgs. of opium, wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the iron basket attached to the motorcycle. The sample of opium recovered was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the same was subsequently found be opium.

The prosecution case primarily rests on the unimpeached testimony of HeadConstable Jangir Singh and SubInspector Gurnam Singh. The only point agitated before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to established that the sample examined by the Chemical Examiner had not been tampered with before it reached his hands. On the strength of the Supreme Court decision reported as State of Rajasthan v.Daulat Ram, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1314, he has argued that the link evidence in this regard not being complaint, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. In this context it is worth recalling the true import of Daulat Ram a case, (supra), came up for consideration in Bhagwan Dass. v. The State of Punjab (Crl. Revision No. 64 of 1982) decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd Jan. 1982 wherein it was held that it is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine any or every concerned official within the office of the Chemical Examiner with regard to the safe custody of the sample therein and its failure to do so does not introduce any infirmity in its case.

Faced with the uphill task of challenging the conviction on merits, within the confines of the revisional jurisdiction, Mr. Harbans Singh very fairly conceded that he was unable to do so.

The learned counsel has prayed that the petitioner should be extended the benefit of the provisions of s. 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I am of the view that having regard to the escalation of this kind of the crime and the quantity of the opium recovered, it is not a case where the petitioner deserves to be released on the execution of a bond as envisaged under S. 360 of the Code. Smuggling is a lucrative criminal activity and the only sentence that can prove deterrent in such cases is of imprisonment. There is however some scope for reduction in the sentence in view petitioner being 22 years of age. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to one year but impose a fine of Rs. 1500/ in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court, as in my opinion it would meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.