Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Challenge herein is to order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate, who, vide judgment dated January 30, 1987, held the petitioner guilty of committing offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. On appeal, order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide judgment dated September 17, 1987. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case has been that on November 9, 1984, petitioner herein was found in possession of one kg. of opium without any permit or licence. The opium was recovered from the petitioner when HC Gurnam Singh accompanied by HC Mukhtiar Singh and Constable Avtar Singh were coming towards bus stand of village Gangohar on cycles in connection with patrolling and when they were hardly at a distance of 100 karams behind the bus stand, petitioner was noticed coming from the side of bus stand holding one bag in his right hand. Being perplexed, the petitioner slipped to his right side. On suspicion, he was apprehended and personal search conducted by HC Gurnam Singh resulted in recovery of a bag containing opium wrapped in a glazed paper which, on weighing, was found to be one Kg. Out of the recovered opium, 10 gms. of opium was drawn for sample and the bulk was put into a separate container Ex. P1 Different parcels, both of sample and of the residue, Ex. P1 were sealed with seal bearing initials `GS and got into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. 3. Prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner, examined PWI HC Gurnam Singh and P.W.2 Constable Avtar Singh and also tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PE and affidavits, Ex. PG and PH of HC Mukhtiar Singh and Constable Sarwal Singh respectively. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He also took up the plea that he had been brought out of the village by the police in the presence of Harbans Singh and got falsely challaned. In his defence, he examined Harbans Singh D.W.1 and Balwant Singh D.W.2. 5. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He also took up the plea that he had been brought out of the village by the police in the presence of Harbans Singh and got falsely challaned. In his defence, he examined Harbans Singh D.W.1 and Balwant Singh D.W.2. 5. Learned trial Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, returned a finding of guilt against the petitioner and convicted and sentenced him in the manner fully detailed above. The appeal carried by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, as mentioned above, met with no success. 6. I have gone through the records of the case, which is available, and heard Mr. Dhaula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Singla, Additional PP for the State. 7. It is pleaded and so argued by the learned counsel that the courts below have ignored the defence evidence without any sufficient reasons and that the investigating officer failed to join any independent witness of the locality and that the courts below have based order of conviction and sentence merely on suspicion and not on the basis of evidence that has come on records of the case. It is also pleaded that the investigating officer was inimical to the petitioner. 8. After evaluating the evidence that has come on records of the case, I am of the view that no infirmity at all can be found with the orders passed by the courts below. Both witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 Gurnam Singh and P.W.2 Constable Avtar Singh have given consistent version of the incident and their evidence inspires confidence. The mere fact that they are police officials is not enough to knock out the entire prosecution case. True, when an independent witness is not joined evidence of police officials has to be evaluated with fore care and caution. Nothing at all has been pointed out that may detract from the findings recorded by the courts below, based upon the statements made by P.W.1 and P.W.2. It was a case where the police party was on patrol duty and petitioner herein, having been found in suspicious circumstances, was apprehended and searched. It was not a case of prior information with the police that a particular person is possessing contraband. It was a case where the police party was on patrol duty and petitioner herein, having been found in suspicious circumstances, was apprehended and searched. It was not a case of prior information with the police that a particular person is possessing contraband. Insofar as plea of non-appreciating the defence evidence is concerned, same is belied from the records of the case. The defence evidence has been appreciated by the trial Magistrate in para 13 of the judgment. I find absolutely no infirmity in the discussion made by the learned trial Magistrate while dealing with the defence version. Nothing at all has been brought on records that the investigating officer was inimically disposed towards the petitioner. That apart, though it may not be impossible, but it is highly improbable that the investigating officer would plant such a huge quantity of opium. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.