Kanshi Ram vs The State

Bedi, J.—Kanshi Ram, the petitioner in this case, was sent up for trial u/s 9 of the Opium Act by Shri Randhir Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, who convicted him and sentenced him to 18 months'' rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Kanshi Ram felt aggrieved against that order and went up in appeal in the Court of Sessions which came up before Shri Gurnam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who dismissed the same but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months and maintained the fine as also the sentence in default of payment of fine vide his order dated the 20th of January 1962. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and has approached this court in revision.

The story for the prosecution briefly runs as under: On receipt of information Charan Das, A.S.I. and T.R. Khanna, Excise Sub-Inspector, organised a raiding party consisting of Bir Bhan, Ajit Singh. Bishambar Singh and some police and excise officials and held nakabandi on the railway level crossing of Laudowal on the G.T. Road beyond Ludhiana on the 30th of April 1961 at about 9-30 p.m. The nakabandi party waited there till about 2 a.m. when truck No. PNP-1066 turned up there. The nakabandi party stopped the truck. One of the persons sitting in it, however, jumped down and ran away, but the petitioner was found driving the truck which was searched and thirty gunny bags containing crushed poppy heads were found therein. Samples were taken and duly sealed at the spot. As a result of the above the petitioner was sent up for trial.

When examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, he admitted the ownership of the truck and the recovery of the incriminating bags containing poppy-heads. He, however; added that the truck at that time was being driven by Duni Chand and as he was aware of the contents of the gunny-bags, he felt guilty and ran away therefrom. The petitioner stated further that he brought load of fuel-wood from Rupar to Ludhiana and after unloading the same went to the house of Guranditta Mal, one of his relatives leaving Duni Chand there giving him directions that he should arrange for the load to be carried in the truck on hire. He also told Duni Chand at that time that after arrangements for the load were made, he should inform him at Guranditta Mal''s house. His plea, therefore, was that he was quite oblivious of the fact that poppy-heads were being carried in the truck. In support of his plea he examined Guranditta Mal and Ishar Das.

The only point, therefore, which requires determination is whether from the circumstances mentioned above the inference against the appellant could be drawn that he was aware of the nature of the load in the truck. The admitted facts in this case are that the appellant was found driving the truck in question at the time of the raid; thirty gunny-bags containing poppy-heads were recovered from the truck; Duni Chand, the other driver of the truck jumped down from the truck on seeing the police party; no entry relating to the goods in question was made in the log-book; the appellant had a valid licence to drive the vehicle, and, lastly, he was the owner of the truck. The appellant''s counsel wants me to believe that the appellant who was the owner of the truck, had no knowledge whatsoever about the contents of the goods in his vehicle, although Duni Chand had. In some cases when the owner does not travel in the truck himself and the matter of loading or unloading entirely rests with the driver, the owner may or may not know what goods were being carried in his vehcile, but in this case we find that the petitioner regularly travels in this truck and even on the day in question there are three entries in the log-book showing that the petitioner was one of the drivers of this vehicle. The omission of the entry from the log-book relating to the transport of these goods, in my opinion, goes a long way against the petitioner. It is also to be taken into consideration that the incriminating articles were being transported at dead of night. All these circumstances, in my opinion, conclusively prove that the petitioner was fully aware of the nature of the goods being carried in the truck at that time. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Maharaj Prithvisinghji Bhimsinghji Vs. State of Bombay (now Rajasthan), but the facts in that case were entirely different. In that case some-bottles of liquor were recovered from the suit-cases of the master, but it was proved as a fact that the servant always packed and unpacked the things of his master and that the keys of the suit cases also remained with the servant. Moreover, the servant himself admitted that it was he who bought the bottles of liquor to be delivered to someone else. That ruling, therefore, had no application to the facts of this case. I am, therefore, of the view that the case against the petitioner is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the petitioner had been released on bail by this Court and he should, therefore, not be sent back to jail to serve the unexpired sentence of imprisonment. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Fauja Singh v. The State (1962) 64 P.L.R. 92, in that case 23 seers of crushed poppy-heads were recovered from the offender, and Gurdev Singh J. dismissed his revision petition, reduced the sentence from four months to two months'' rigorous imprisonment and maintained the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- imposed upon him. The quantity of poppy-heads recovered in this sase, however, is thirty bags containing about thirty maunds. Under the circumstances, the sentence awarded by Gurdev Singh J. in that case has no relevancy to the present one. The counsel also submitted that the possession of poppy-heads is no offence in U.P. and this was only made an offence in Punjab probably in 1959. Whether that is or is not an offence in U.P., we are not concerned. The possession of poppy-heads was made an offence in the Punjab quite a few years back and it, therefore, cannot be said to be a recent happening. In my opinion, therefore the sentence imposed on the petitioner is by no means excessive. The revison, therefore stands dismissed.