Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1214 (PNJ)

Nawab v. State Of Punjab

2000-10-05

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Nawab (hereinafter described as `the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira dated 25.7.1986. The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fire of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergone further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 2. The relevant facts are that on 25.11.1987 ASI Balwant Singh accompanied by ASI Mukhtiar Singh and constable Ram Saroop were proceeding to village Taiban from village Mojgarh. They were patrolling the area. On the way when they reached near the bridge of the canal which falls within the revenue estate of village Bakarwala, the petitioner was spotted. He was coming along the canal from the eastern side. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip back but was apprehended. He was holding a bag in his right hand. The bag was checked and was found to be containing opium. 10 grams was taken as the representative sample. The remaining opium was weighed and found to be 4 kilograms and 990 grams. The residue bulk of opium and the sample were converted into two different parcels and sealed with the seal of `BS. The seal after use was given to ASI Mukhtiar Singh. The articles were sealed and were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the police station, on basis of which formal first information report was recorded by ASI Sunder Singh. Rough site plan was prepared. The petitioner was arrested. All the articles were deposited in the Malkhana and later sent for chemical examination. The report was received that it was opium. This led to the filing of the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The charge was framed under Section 9 of the Opium Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined two official witnesses namely Mukhtiar Singh and Balwant Singh. This led to the filing of the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The charge was framed under Section 9 of the Opium Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined two official witnesses namely Mukhtiar Singh and Balwant Singh. Besides tendering the report of the Chemical Examiner, affidavits of MHC Piara Lal and Constable Jarnail Singh were also tendered in evidence. 4. The defence of the petitioner was that he was arrested from his house and falsely implicated. He tendered the copy of the judgment dated 19.2.1986, rendered in FIR No. 626 dated 21.11.1983 and copy of the statement of ASI Balwant Singh. 5. The learned trial Court held that there is no ground to discard the testimonies of the official witnesses and accordingly held the petitioner guilty of the above said offence regarding which the charge was framed. With these findings, the above noted order of sentence followed. The appeal also failed which led to the filing of the present revision petition. 6. When the revision petition was listed for arguments, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The revision petition is pending since the year 1987. Therefore, the Court did not deem it appropriate to again adjourn it. Of course the advantage of hearing the petitioners arguments was lost. 7. In the grounds of revision, the stress has been laid that there is no public witness that has been joined and, therefore, the testimonies of official witnesses should not be believed. 8. It is well settled that joining of public witnesses is not mandatory. As a rule of prudence, the Courts have been insisting that public witnesses should be joined. However, in the given facts, as in the present case, when there is a sudden recovery of opium as a result of search, it would be a folly to insist that public witnesses must have been joined. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the said plea necessarily must fail. 9. Copy of the judgment rendered in the case State v. Balkar Singh, reveals that in another case Balwant Singh PW-2 had been disbelieved. But merely because a witness is not believed in one matter, necessarily, it cannot be taken that in all cases he would be a false witness. 9. Copy of the judgment rendered in the case State v. Balkar Singh, reveals that in another case Balwant Singh PW-2 had been disbelieved. But merely because a witness is not believed in one matter, necessarily, it cannot be taken that in all cases he would be a false witness. In each case evidence has to be examined on its own facts. When there is precious little on record, his evidence was rightly acted upon. 10. The only other question which requires consideration is about the quantum of sentence. The revision petition has been pending in this Court for more than 13 years. The petitioner has already undergone about three months of sentence. Taking stock of the said fact that revision petition is pending in this Court for such a long time, the interest of justice shall be fully met if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. For these reasons, on its merits, the revision petition is dismissed. But the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone with no interference on the quantum of fine.