GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.—The state of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent from the offence of S.4,9 of the Opium Act. 2. The respondent, Rattiram was alleged to have opium as per the information received by Rameshwar Dayal Head Constable of Police Station, Bakani (Jhalawar district) on 25.8.71. A trap was arranged towards the village Motipura along with the police party. In the morning at about 2.00 a.m. accused was sighted and spotted. He has intercepted and 500 gms opium was recovered from one bag and 800 gms opium from another bag. The memo was prepared at the site in the presence of motbirs. Rattiram was arrested. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst which were found to contain morphine. The challan was produced after usual investigation. After trial the accused respondent was acquitted. 3. Primary reason for acquittal is that the motbirs have turned hostile, Shri S.B. Mathur, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if the motbirs are not trust worthy and they have turned hostile, the statement of Rameshwar (PW 11) and Devilal (PW 1) should be believed who are police officials. 4. Shri P.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that this is an appeal against acquittal and if two views are possible, the acquittal should be upheld. Shri Sharma submitted that the witnesses of trap are partisan and since the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the acquittal should be upheld. 5. The opium alleged to have been recovered is 500 gms. and 800 gms. Devilal (PW 1) has stated that he along with other persons of the police party waited in ambush. When Rattiram came, they saw having a small bundle of turban in possession of Ratti Ram. This small bundle was got opened and it was found that there was opium in it. Rameshwar and Champalal etc. were there. In cross-examination this witnesses has stated that Rattiram also tried to run away as his companions ran away but he could not succeed. Small bundle of opium was lying on the ground. The other witness who has supported the prosecution case is Rameshwar (PW 11) who is also head constable in police. According to him, when the accused was apprehended, he tried to run away but he was caught. Small bundle of opium was lying on the ground. The other witness who has supported the prosecution case is Rameshwar (PW 11) who is also head constable in police. According to him, when the accused was apprehended, he tried to run away but he was caught. One bag was found with him and he mentioned that other bag has been thrown near the well. Both bags were taken and it was found that there was opium. In cross-examination the version of this witness is that he saw one small bundle in his hand and the other was thrown on the ground, Both were not covered in turban but only one was covered and wrapped in a turban. 6. From the above, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is contradiction between the prosecution version and the recovery and, therefore no interference should be made in appeal against acquittal. 7. Shri Mathur on the contrary has submitted that the recovery memo, site inspection memo corroborated the statement of these witnesses and the substance of the allegation is that there were two bundles which the accused was bringing in his turban, tied to his hand and out of them, when he was apprehended he tried to throw on the ground and one was thrown on the well and one was found in his hand. 8. I have carefully considered all the statements of the witnesses. It is true that the witnesses could have been called independent witnesses and were trusted as motbirs have turned hostile. However, the hostile witnesses cannot provide protective umbrella of defence as it would tentaraount to put premium on dishonest and falsehood. The hostile witnesses have signed recoveries memo and never made any complaint of their signatures by fraud and they cannot treat the courts with scant regards by disowning. 9. So far as two police employees mentioned above, viz., Rameshar (PW 11) and Devilal (PW 1) are concerned, their evidence, in my opinion, is not tainted or interested as they on receiving information waited in ambush after arranging a trap in the dead of the night and recovered stuff opium. 10. 9. So far as two police employees mentioned above, viz., Rameshar (PW 11) and Devilal (PW 1) are concerned, their evidence, in my opinion, is not tainted or interested as they on receiving information waited in ambush after arranging a trap in the dead of the night and recovered stuff opium. 10. It has repeatedly been laid down by their Lordships of the Apex court in the decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 2783 and AIR 1974 SC 989 that the police employees are competent as independent witnesses as anybody elses testimony should believed it if inspires confidence. 11. In the present case, the various discrepancies between these two police employees version pointed out, are too minor and insignificant. The crux of the allegation which has been corroborated by these two witnesses and proved by the prosecution is that when Rattiram came in the dead of the night at about 2.00 a.m. both of them along with other police party were Waiting in ambush near the well in village. As soon as police party detected and spotted Rattiram, he also became conscious and he tried to run away. There were two persons. Two bundles were recovered out of which one was from ground and another was from the head of the accused. In my opinion, even if the defence version is believed that there was one more person who threw the stuff and one bundle belonged to him then also, on that count, Rattiram cannot escape his liability. Rattiram was found having possession of the stuff in the bundle which was found on his hand and which he tried to throw on the ground later on by running. This bundle contained opium as per experts report. The finding of the trial court on this point that the stuff was opium is based on correct appreciation of the evidence and the report of expert. 12. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be accepted and it is hereby allowed. The acquittal of the accused is set aside. Rattiram is convicted for the offence under S. 4/9 of the Opium Act. 13. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was of 70 years of age at the time of occurrence which is of 1971. His prayer is that the accused must be released by imposition of fine and should not be sent to jail now. 14. Rattiram is convicted for the offence under S. 4/9 of the Opium Act. 13. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was of 70 years of age at the time of occurrence which is of 1971. His prayer is that the accused must be released by imposition of fine and should not be sent to jail now. 14. Shri Mathur submitted that under S.9 of the Opium Act it is mandatory for the court to impose the the sentence of imprisonment. Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1978 reads as under: "9. Penalty for illegal cultivation of poppy etc. - Any person who, in contravention of this Act, or of rules made and notified under S.5 or Sec. 8- (a) possesses opium, or (b) transports opium, or (c) imports or exports opium, or (d) sells opium, or (e) omits to warehouse opium, or removes or does any act in respect of werehoused opium. and any person who otherwise contravenes any such rule, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punishable for each such offence with imprisonment which may extent to three years, with or without fine; and where a fine is imposed, the convicting Magistrate shall direct the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of the fine for a term which may extend to six months and such imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced." 15. In the decision reported in 1976 R.L.W. 535 (538) this Court has held that such offences of contra bound opium are of the species of "economic crimes" and serious view should be taken. Again, it was held by this court in the decision reported in 1981 Raj. Cri. cases 233 (235) that the sentence of fine only cannot be awarded under s. 9 of the Opium Act. This court in the judgment reported in 1955 RLW 48(50) held that, when a substantial quantity of opium is recovered from the possession of the accused, a deterrent sentence is called for. 16. In the present case, the accused appears to be a smuggler or peddler. 17. In view of the seriousness of the offence and since it is gruesome crime and against society, I am not inclined to release the accused either on probation or on the sentence undergone, which is only two days at the time of arrest. 18. 16. In the present case, the accused appears to be a smuggler or peddler. 17. In view of the seriousness of the offence and since it is gruesome crime and against society, I am not inclined to release the accused either on probation or on the sentence undergone, which is only two days at the time of arrest. 18. However, since the accused is an old man of 79 years now, the sentence of one months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- would meet ends of justice. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the acquittal of the accused-respondent Rattiram is set aside. The accused - respondent is convicted under S.9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to under go one months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of line, he would further undergo 3 months RI. 20. The accused - respondent is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds. The trial court is directed to get the accused respondent arrested to serve out the sentence recorded as aforesaid by this Court. His bail bonds are cancelled.