Sajjan Singh vs State of Punjab

S. S. Dewan, J.—Sajjan Singh petitioner was brought to trial under S. 9 of the Opium Act for having been found in possession of 40 kgs. of opium on October 2 1977. He was convicted of the said charge and according sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/ by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained by a considered judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated September, 23, 1980. He has now come up by way of revision.

The prosecution case is a typical one of personal recovery. On 2nd of October, 1977, SubInspector Ajit Singh alongwith Assistant SubInspector Sarup Singh and the other officials was present on the road leading to Shahbpura. In connection with patrol duty. Or receipt of secret information there, SubInspector Inspector Ajit Singh organised a raiding party and raked the farm house (Behk) of the petitioner. The petitioner was intercepted in the train gate of his farm house and at that time, he was carrying a bag on his right shoulder. The SubInspector searched the person of the petitioner and 40 kgs. of opium wrapped in a glazed paper, was recovered from bag. After completing the formalities, a sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found the same to be of opium vide his report, Exhibit P.D. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Assistant SubInspector Sarup Singh P.W.1, and SubInspector Ajit Singh, P.W. 2. Both the courts below on critical appraisal have accepted their testimony.

Mr. Ajmer Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, could not, challenge the testimony of the aforesaid official witnesses. He, however, placed reliance on a decision in Hari Singh v. The State, 1974 CLR 482. A close analysis of the judgment, however, would show that therein the evidence of the official witnesses was found to be discrepant and cotpied with the fact that there was no independent witness, benefit of doubt was accorded to the petitioner. Herein it cannot be said that the situation is identical. The alleged discrepancies in the evidence are nothing but what may be labelled as discrepancies of truthful witnesses deposing after a long time. The insignificant discrepancy in which the SubInspector offered himself for search is the only infirmity sought to be pointed out in the evidence. This is merely a financial type of criticism which does not in any way dislodge the broad prosecution story and the mode and manner of the recoveryof 40 Kgs. of opium from the petitioner.

A fragmentary challenge to the independence of the witnesses was wade on the ground that the SubInspector had some arimus against the petitioner. This is not borne out from the record at all. A suggestion of this nature was stoutly repelled by the said witness and no defence or other evidence exists on the record to support this allegation. In this context, both the official witnesses must be held to be disinterested and their as observed by the Supreme Court a number of times, can not be doubted merely on that ground.

As regards extending the benefit of the provisions of S. 360, Criminal Code, to the petitioner. I P.m of the view &at having regard to the escalation of this kind of the crime and the quantity the opium recovered, it is not a case where the petitioner deserves to the 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 or imprisonment. The occurrence took place as far back as 1977. There is, however, marginal scope for reduction in the sentence. I accordingly, reduce it to 2 years rigorous imprisonment but impose a fine of Rs. 2000/ in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court as in my opinion it will meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment or fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.

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