JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision by accused Bhakra Ram against his conviction under Sec. 4/9 of Opium Act, and a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. According to the prosecution case on 22-1-78 Shanti Swaroop, Excise Officer (Enforcement), Kota, intercepted the accused who was going on cycle and found 15kgs and 360 gram of Opium in the possession of the accused. After usual investigating the accused was challenged and convicted and sentenced as mentioned above by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi. The appeal which was filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 22-12-79 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, by his judgment dated 26-2-81. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the statements of Udaram and Shantiswaroop, recorded under section 161 were not given to the accused and as such the accused was prejudiced in his trial. Both the lower-courts have held that no such objection was raised by the accused at the time of the recording of the statements of these witnesses before the trial-court and the A P.P. had stated that the copies of the statements of these witnesses were furnished to the accused Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of these witnesses recorded under Section 161 are not on record and as such there is no question of giving the copies of the statements to the accused. 3. I have perused the judgment of the learned Magistrate in this regard where in also such argument was raised, but the learned Magistrate, has observed that the counsel for the accused was unable to state that the copies of the statements of these witnesses were not given to him. The learned counsel for the accused wanted to place reliance on a note made in the cross-examination of P.W. 5 but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, did not agree with the above submission in as much as the statement of witnesses. The learned counsel for the accused wanted to place reliance on a note made in the cross-examination of P.W. 5 but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, did not agree with the above submission in as much as the statement of witnesses. Udaram was present on the record and as regards Shantiswaroop though it was not on the record but the counsel for the accused was unable to state that a copy of his statement was not given to him nor he ever raised any objection in this regard. I do not find any reason to hold that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, committed any error in taking the above view. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the chemical examiner's report has not been proved by any witnesses nor it is proved from this report that the article seized came within the definition of Opium under Section 3 of the Act. It is contended that it is not proved from the chemical examiners report that the article seized was opium falling within any one of the 3 clauses given in the definition of opium under Section 3. 4. I have perused the chemical examiners report and in the column of description of articles it is mentioned. " Nkx vk jgs FksA tks fpidus okyh FkhA " and in the column of result of examination it has been mentioned that on chemical examination the sample contained in the packet was found to be of opium having 3.66 % Morphine. In my opinion there is no need to prove the Chemical Examiners report and presumption can be drawn from the report. In my opinion the description of the articles mentioned in this report along with result of examination clearly fulfills the requirements of the definition of opium as given under the Act. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer had not been examined in this case and in the absence of his statement it cannot be held established that the seal of the opium seized from the petitioner was kept intact and the same sample was sent for chemical analysis. 5. I see no force in this contention as well as the entire proceedings on the spot was conducted by the Excise Officer, Shri Shantiswaroop, P.W. 5 and he has clearly deposed that there were 3 Thelies of regzine. 5. I see no force in this contention as well as the entire proceedings on the spot was conducted by the Excise Officer, Shri Shantiswaroop, P.W. 5 and he has clearly deposed that there were 3 Thelies of regzine. Out of these thelies No. 1 and 2, 30 grams each of opium was taken for sample which were kept in 2 iron boxes which were sealed and then the 3 regzine bags 1 were sealed and thereafter all these were sent to the police station along with I report Ex P 7. He further deposed in his statement in the court that the seals were intact and were in the same condition in which they were put at the time of seizure. It is also mentioned in the chemical analysis report that the cover which was properly sealed with impression of a seal corresponding with the seal impression forwarded the seals were intact. 6. Under these circumstances in my opinion no grievance can be raised by the petitioner on account of non-production of the Investigating Officer. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner is a poor person and has to maintain his entire family and it is his first offence and as such a lenient view should be taken in the matter of sentence. Reliance is placed on A.I.R. 1967 Orissa, 54 in which the accused was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, I am not prepared to grant any benefit of probation in the facts and circumstances of this case. The accused has been found in possession of 15 kgs and 360 grams of opium in his possession red handed. In the Orissa, case it was an offence under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act, and it was observed that the capsules were kept not for the purpose of preparing opium for the consumption, but for carrying on the business of dispatching it to other places and there by making some profit. The above case is thus, entirely distinguishable. 7. In the result, I find no ground to interfere in this revision and the some is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******