JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - This revision is directed against order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, dated January 24, 1987 vide which petitioner was held guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. The appeal preferred by petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, failed vide order dated September 25, 1987. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case has been that the police party headed by SI Karam Singh was present in connection with patrol duty on the bridge of Bhakhra Canal falling in the area of village Ranhera, on March 5, 1984 at 12.15 PM. Petitioner came on foot from village Ranhera and he was carrying a Pipa Tin over his head. On seeing the policy party, he went towards his left side in the fields. On suspicion, he was apprehended and opium weighing 4.50 kgs., wrapped in a glazed paper, was recovered from the pipa tin which he was carrying. 10 Grams of opium was separated as sample and put in a small box and the remaining opium was put in the same pipa tin. Two parcels were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression KS. The opium was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. Ruqa, Ex.PU was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR, EX. PB/1 was recorded. 3. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner, prosecution examined PW1 SI Gurdev Singh and PW2 SI Karam Singh. Report of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PD and affidavits of HC Gurmail Singh, Ex.PE and that of Constable Jeet Ram, Ex.PF were tendered into evidence. 4. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner stated that he was innocent. He further stated that a police party consisting of Karam Singh SI, Gurdev Singh ASI and Jagdish Kumar Constable apprehended him on March 4, 1984 from the Bore of Puran Singh in the area of village Dhurian, when he had gone to purchase a buffalo at 8 AM. He was having Rs. 3025/- in his possession. He was beaten by Lathis by them and on that account he filed complaint. He was having Rs. 3025/- in his possession. He was beaten by Lathis by them and on that account he filed complaint. When he was in the police custody, Pargat Singh and Karnail Singh were also there in the police custody. On March 5, 1984, he was involved in two cases and he was released on March 14, 1984 from the jail on bail. He got himself medically examined on March 15, 1984. He filed a complaint against the police officials. In his defence, he examined DW1 Karnail Singh, DW2 Pargat Singh, DW3 Dr. J.P. Goel and DW4 Jarnail Singh. 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, after evaluating the evidence of both, prosecution and defence, returned a finding of guilt and sentenced the petitioner in the manner, fully detailed above. 6. I have heard Mr. S.K. Singla, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State of Punjab and gone through the record of the case, which is available. It has been pleaded in the grounds of revision that the courts below have ignored the defence evidence led by the petitioner and the same was rejected without any cogent ground. Karnail Singh and Pargat Singh belonged to different villages and produced attested copies of judgment Ex.D1 and D2 which show that they were in custody of the police on March 4, 1984. Their evidence that petitioner was locked up in the police station along with them on March 4, 1984 could not be challenged in cross-examination and it could not be shown that they deposed falsely. It has further been pleaded that evidence of Jarnail Singh and Geja Singh has been ignored for no reason and that the medical evidence produced in defence is also unassailable. Learned courts below wrongly stated that there was no documentary evidence to show that Karnail Singh and Pargat Singh were in the lock-up on March 4, 1984. It has been pleaded that the courts below did not apply their mind to the facts of the case and erred in observing that Geja Singh and Puran Singh had not been produced in defence. In fact, Geja Singh was produced in defence and the trial Court recorded Geja Singh as DW1 and again another witness Karnail Singh as DW2. It has been pleaded that the trial Court wrongly ignored the complaint, Ex. In fact, Geja Singh was produced in defence and the trial Court recorded Geja Singh as DW1 and again another witness Karnail Singh as DW2. It has been pleaded that the trial Court wrongly ignored the complaint, Ex. DW3/A filed by the petitioner against police officials immediately after his release from the jail and that in any case the sentence of two years was excessive commensurate to the crime committed by the petitioner. 7. As mentioned above, I have evaluated the evidence of both the sides, i.e., prosecution and defence in light of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of revision but find no substance whatsoever in this revision petition. Coming first to the defence led by the petitioner, it may be recalled that he endeavoured to show that he was in fact and reality arrested on March 4, 1984 from the Bore of Puran Singh of village Dhurian when he had gone to purchase a buffalo from one Geja Singh. It is further his case that he was given beating by the police officials and thereafter detained in the police lock up where Pargat Singh and Karnail Singh were also confined and that on March 5, 1984 a false case was planted against him. He got himself medically examined when he was released from jail and then filed a complaint against the police officials. As would be clear from the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, DW1 and DW2 were detained in the police lock up since about two and half years ago and this is what has been stated by DW1 in his examination-in-chief. While deposing on behalf of the defence in examination-in-chief he did not state as to on what date he was actually confined in the lock up and on what date the petitioner had come to be lodged in the same lock up. True, in the cross-examination he states the event to be of March 4, 1984, but further goes on to say that the petitioner was already in lock-up before he was so lodged there. It may be recalled that this was not the plea of petitioner. In fact, his case has been that the came to be lodged in the same lock up where DW1 was already there. Insofar as DW2 is concerned, his version is no different than that of DW1. It may be recalled that this was not the plea of petitioner. In fact, his case has been that the came to be lodged in the same lock up where DW1 was already there. Insofar as DW2 is concerned, his version is no different than that of DW1. He has not given any date, either in his examination-in-chief or cross-examination, when he might have been in the same judicial lock up where petitioner might have been brought. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that no reliance can be placed upon the statements of DW1 and DW2 because their names are not suggested by the learned defence counsel to any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Their names find mention for the first time in the statement of petitioner made under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code It has further been found by learned Additional Sessions Judge that even otherwise statements of DW1 and DW2 do not in any way help the defence version and there is no documentary evidence to show that Karnail Singh and Pargat Singh were lying locked in the police lock up and DDR maintained by the police was the best evidence to prove their confinement but the same has not been proved. No exception at all can be had to the findings aforesaid recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Insofar as DW1 Geja Singh is concerned he stated that the petitioner had come to him for purchasing buffalo about two and half years back but he could not tell the specific date on which petitioner visited him. Insofar as injuries to petitioner and filing of complaint is concerned it could also be an attempt on the part of petitioner to create defence. The record would reflect that all the injuries were simple and as per the statement of DW3 Dr. J.P. Goel, the same could be self-suffered. It is not a case where defence evidence was not evaluated, be it oral statement made by DW1 and DW2 or documentary evidence. Further, it is a case or recovery of 4.5 kgs of opium and it is not probable that such a huge quantity of contraband was simply planted upon the petitioner by the police. It is not a case where defence evidence was not evaluated, be it oral statement made by DW1 and DW2 or documentary evidence. Further, it is a case or recovery of 4.5 kgs of opium and it is not probable that such a huge quantity of contraband was simply planted upon the petitioner by the police. Insofar as prosecution evidence is concerned, a finding has given recorded by both the courts below that both the official witnesses have been consistent version of the incident and even though their evidence has to be evaluated with due care and caution, the same has stood the said test as well. Insofar as quantum of sentence is concerned, the same cannot be said to be excessive in view of recovery of 4.5 kgs of opium. There is no scope for reducing the sentence as well. 8. In view of what has been said above, finding no merit in this petition, I dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.