Natha Singh vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

The prosecution case against the present revisionpetitioner, in brief, is that on December 13, 1978, SubInspector Amrao Singh, alongwith some other Police Officials and Excise Inspector Nirbhai Singh Walia, held Nakabandi in the area of village Jakhepal. Hirda Singh had been joined in the Party. The petitioner came there. On suspicion being roused, he was apprehended by SI Amrao Singh and on his search, 5 Kilograms and 500 grams of opium was recovered. 100 grams of opium was separated as a sample. The sample and remaining bulk were separately sealed and were taken into possession by the said Police Officer. He sent ruqqa Ex. PC to Police Station Sunam and on its basis, formal First Information Report Ex. PC/1, was recorded by HeadConstable Chhaju Singh. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide his report Ex. PF. opined that its contents were opium.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution allegations. According to him, the Police came to his house and affected search, but nothing was recovered. He was then beaten by the Police and taken to the Police Station. He further pleaded that one ASI Rattan Singh was inimical towards him, as he had got him dismissed from service and the said ASI Rattan Singh was in the Police Station when he was taken there. In his defence, the petitioner examined Constable Paramjit Singh (DW1), Niranjan Singh (DW2) Bara Singh (DW3) and Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar (DW4), Chemical Examiner to Government, Patiala. It is not necessary to refer to their statements as these were not refer to before me.

The learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sunam, who tried the case, believed the prosecution version, convicted the petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/. It was also ordered that in case of default in payment of fine, he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sangrur. The learned lower appellate Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court in revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution version has only been supported by official witnesses, namely Excise Inspector Nirbhai Singh Walia (PW1) and SI Amrao Singh (PW2), but only nonofficial witness, namely Hirda Singh, who has been associated in the investigation, has not been examined. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution had given up Hirda Singh, as having been won over. I am of the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the ground that the only nonofficial witness associated in the party was not examined. It is a settled principle that the statements of the official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on account of their official position. They are as good witnesses as any other witness. In the present case, the party holding Nakabandi had associated Hirda Singh on the file that Hirda Singh was a stock witness of the Police. Therefore, the proceedings of Nakabandi cannot be viewed with suspicion. It is a different matter that the accused if at all it be true, was able to win over Hirda Singh and therefore, the prosecution had to give him up as having been won over.

The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the statement of Excise Inspector Nirbhai Singh Walia (PW.1) SI Amrao Singh (PW2). There is no allegation that the local Police was in any way inimical towards the petitioner. The allegation that one ASI Rattan Singh was inimical towards him and was present in the Police Station when he is alleged to have been taken there, has not been substantiated. In the present case, I do not find any ground to disbelieve the statements of the above official witnesses.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that it is in the evidence that some persons were working in the fields situated near the place of Nakabandi, but none of them was joined. It is the prosecution version that while the party was holding Nakabandi, the petitioner came there by chance. One independent witness was already a member of the Nakabandi party. In such circumstances, SI Amrao Singh might have not thought it necessary to all another independent person.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the accused is a first offender and therefore, the benefit of the provisions of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be given to him. In the present case the petitioner was found carrying 5 kilogram 500 grams of opium. He is either a smuggler of opium or is a paddler in it. Both the actions of the petitioner are against the interest of the society at large. The learned counsel cited a couple of authorities of this court to show that in some cases, an accused convicted under the Opium Act was granted probation. A case decided on its own facts cannot be cited as a precedent. Of course, modern penology leans towards reformation of an accused, but each case, has to be decided on its own merits. In the present case, I do not find any ground to grant probation to the petitioner under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is on the harsher side and that it be reduced. This argument has force. The petitioner was found carrying huge quantity of opium. The learned trial Court has already dealt with him in a lenient manner. I do not find any ground to reduce the sentence of the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any force in this revision and consequently dismiss it.