ORDER D.K. Jain, J. 1. Applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari son of Ramadhar Tiwari resident of Shahdol, was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 9A of the Opium Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Cr. Case No. 630/84 decided on 26-9-1987, and against this conviction and sentence applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Shahdol. In Cr. Appeal No. 50/87 decided on 1-10-1988 the conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused were maintained and the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Cr. Appeal No. 50/87, decided on 1-10-1988 this revision has been preferred on behalf of applicant/appellant Surajbali Tiwari. 2. According to the prosecution, applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari was found in illegal possession of about 10 gm. of opium on 10-6-1984 at Shahdol and the same was seized from him in the presence of witnesses. On examining the article seized from applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari it was found to be opium. After investigation a charge-sheet was put up against applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari in the Court of C.J.M., Shahdol. 3. Accused Surajbali Tiwari had abjured his guilt before the trial Court. 4. On behalf of the applicant it has mainly been submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in placing reliance on the sole testimony of Jayendra Singh (PW 1) who was also Investigating Officer in the case and as such he was an interested witness. There was no independent witness examined in the case on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the applicant/accused was found in possession of opium. It was further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the court below should have taken a lenient view while convicting the applicant. In the end, it was submitted that the conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused be set aside and he be acquitted of the charge under Section 9A of Opium Act. 5. On behalf of the non-applicant/State of M.P. it was submitted that the charge levelled against applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari was fully proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and that the courts below had committed no error in holding the applicant/accused guilty of the offence under Section 9A of the Opium Act. 6. 5. On behalf of the non-applicant/State of M.P. it was submitted that the charge levelled against applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari was fully proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and that the courts below had committed no error in holding the applicant/accused guilty of the offence under Section 9A of the Opium Act. 6. Both the courts below have reached the conclusion that on the date of incident the applicant/accused was found in illegal possession of about 10 gm. opium which was seized from his possession, as per seizure-memo Ex. P-l. Both the courts below have rightly placed reliance on the version of Jayendra Singh (PW 1) as his testimony stands unchallenged. Regarding the fact that the accused was found in possession of 10 Gm. opium which was seized from his possession, Sub-Inspector R.N. Agnihotri (PW 2) had examined the articles seized from the applicant/accused and had come to the conclusion that the seized article was opium as per his Report Ex.P-5. Prabhakar Shukla (PW 3) had also supported the prosecution version regarding the opium having been seized from the accused but the testimony of this witness, Prabhakar Shukla, was discarded by the Sessions Judge on the ground that this witness has admitted during his cross-examination that he had given evidence in hundreds' of cases on behalf of the prosecution. Even if the testimony of this witness Prabhakar Shukla was discarded, even then from the unchallenged testimony of Jayendra Singh (PW 1) the offence against applicant/Surajbali stands fully proved. There is nothing on record to show that this witness Jayendra Singh (PW 1) bore any illwill against accused Surajbali or that he had falsely implicated him. Thus, there is no illegality committed by the courts below in holding applicant/accused Surajbali guilty of the offence under Section 9A of the Opium Act. As regards sentence awarded to applicant Suraj Bali Tiwari the same cannot be said to be very harsh and hence, in my opinion, the same call for no interference in this revision. 7. There is no merit in this revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant/accused, Surajbali Tiwari and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused, Surajbali Tiwari awarded under Section 9A of Opium Act is confirmed. 7. There is no merit in this revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant/accused, Surajbali Tiwari and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused, Surajbali Tiwari awarded under Section 9A of Opium Act is confirmed. Applicant/accused Surajbali is reported to be on bail, he shall appear before the C.J.M., Shahdol on 16-11-1992 to hear the result of the revision petition and to undergo the sentence awarded to him, under Section 9A of the Opium Act.