JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - State of Punjab has preferred the present appeal against the acquittal of Tota Singh respondent, who was allegedly found in possession of 13.950 kgs. of opium. 2. The gravamen of police charge against respondent-Tota Singh is that he on 17.3.1983 was found in conscious possession of 13.950 kgs. of opium punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala under Section 9(a) of the Act vide judgment dated 8.2.1988 and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he preferred the appeal and the same stands allowed vide impugned judgment dated 16.7.1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard Ms. B.K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. R.S. Mamli, learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record minutely. 4. Learned State counsel has argued with vehemence that the only ground of acquittal of the respondent is non-examination of the Investigating Officer (Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh) and the view taken by the learned lower Appellate Court is that this has deprived the defence of its statutory right to cross-examine the material witness, resultantly causing prejudice to the accused. According to the learned State counsel this approach of the lower Appellate Court is unsustainable in the present set of circumstances because the prosecution in support of its case has examined other two material official witnesses of the recovery, namely, HC Malkiat Singh (PW1) and ASI Lal Chand (PW2) and they have supported the prosecution case in toto so far as alleged recovery of opium is concerned. The learned counsel then submits that all the material documents including the recovery memo Ex.PA and the rough site plan Ex.PC have also been duly proved in this case from the statement of Lal Chand ASI (PW2) who has stated that the above said documents are in his writing and there is otherwise no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the above said two official witnesses which is unimpeachable. Even otherwise, there is no motive with the police officials to falsely involve the present respondent in a case of very heavy recovery of about 14 kgs. Even otherwise, there is no motive with the police officials to falsely involve the present respondent in a case of very heavy recovery of about 14 kgs. Consequently, the impugned judgment as recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside as the charge against the respondent is proved to the hilt, the State counsel so contends. 5. Developing the arguments further it is submitted by the learned State counsel that Inspector Hardeep Singh was in fact dismissed from the service and at the time of trial of the present case, was intentionally not appearing before the Court in spite of the fact that many summons were sent to him to procure his presence and ultimately the Court had closed the evidence of the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mamli while refuting the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel has drawn my attention to para 5 of the impugned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court where the effect of non- examination of Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh (Investigating Officer) has been discussed in detail. Mr. Mamli submits that the finding of the lower Appellate Court is otherwise not liable to be disturbed as the alleged recovery from the respondent doe not get any corroboration from independent witnesses and as such it should be seen with an eye of suspicion. 7. In the alternative, Mr. Mamli states that though not conceded yet in the event of disturbing the finding of acquittal of the present respondent, a lenient approach regarding sentence be extended towards him keeping in view that he has already suffered the protracted trial of long 20 years and that the present case being under the Opium Act, he can even be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. In support of his arguments, he relies upon Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1977 C.L.R. (P&H) 247 and Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1977 CLR 20. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court whereby acquitting the appellant deserves to be set aside. I have once again pursued the impugned judgment minutely. The entire evidence led by the prosecution has also been scanned by me. 9. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court whereby acquitting the appellant deserves to be set aside. I have once again pursued the impugned judgment minutely. The entire evidence led by the prosecution has also been scanned by me. 9. The case of the prosecution in short is that Malkiat Singh PW1, ASI Lal Chand PW2 and Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh (not examined) and few more officials were present at Ghariala crossing. In the meantime, a passenger bus came from the side of Rampura and stopped there. The respondent got down from the bus. He was holding a gunny bag in his hand and after seeing the police party, he tried to slip away. He was intercepted and his gunny bag was checked in which opium weighing 13.950 kgs. was recovered. Admittedly, the acquittal of the present respondent is on account of non- examination of Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh, the Investigating Officer who was dismissed from service. A perusal of the zimni orders shows that even at one stage has non-bailable warrants were also issued by the trial Court. The record further reveals that an effort was also made by the prosecution agency to get his service effected through special messenger and the report of the executing official is that he was intentionally evading the service. In vernacular it reads as, "Jaan Buj Kar rooposh ho jata ha." Ultimately on 17.11.1987 the evidence of the prosecution was closed. This all indicates that in fact Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh who was the Investigating Officer of this case and was dismissed employee of the police department was in fact wanted to help the respondent for certain oblique reasons. The find of the lower Appellate Court to the effect that there is no material to indicate as to what steps were taken by the prosecution to secure the presence of Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh is in fact against the records. As stated above, the prosecution agency has made all efforts to secure the presence of above said witness but despite their best efforts, they could not produce him and ultimately, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the orders of Court. I do not want to comment further in this regard. As stated above, the prosecution agency has made all efforts to secure the presence of above said witness but despite their best efforts, they could not produce him and ultimately, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the orders of Court. I do not want to comment further in this regard. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the prosecution has brought the evidence of other two official witnesses which is quite convincing. ASI Lal Chand (PW2) has categorically stated that he and other police officials including HC Malkiat Singh PW1 were present along with Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh when the respondent was apprehended and ultimately the contraband was allegedly recovered from him. He has also stated on oath that he had written the recovery memo and rough site plan in his hand. No doubt HC Malkiat Singh PW1 has stated that the above said two documents were prepared by SI Hardeep Singh in his hand but this fact by itself would not be a ground to reject the statement of ASI Lal Chand, who was the scribe of the above said documents. There is no reason to disbelieve these two police officials who have no reason to falsely implicate the respondent. No animosity has been projected against the official witnesses. They have been cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused but nothing has come on the record to show that they have deposed falsely. 10. No doubt that at the time of alleged recovery, no independent witnesses were joined but the corroboration to the statement of the police officials is a rule of caution and not a rule of law. In the instance case, a very heavy quantity has been recovered from the respondent and the same cannot be planted falsely. 11. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent is hereby set aside whereas of the learned trial Court is reaffirmed and he stands convicted for the charge punishable under Section 9 of the Act. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find some force in the submissions made by Mr. Mamli, learned counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, the present case relates to the year 1983. The respondent has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of long 20 years. He was acquitted way back in the year 1990. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find some force in the submissions made by Mr. Mamli, learned counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, the present case relates to the year 1983. The respondent has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of long 20 years. He was acquitted way back in the year 1990. The record reveals that initially he remained in custody for about seven days after his arrest. He was then granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court. He had absented himself on two different occasions and then was granted bail after he remained in custody for about a week or so on both the occasions. He has thus undergone about three weeks of his substantive sentence. He has been convicted for one year only by the trial Court. No doubt, learned counsel for the respondent prays for probation on the basis of Bhagwan Singhs case and Gurbachan Singhs case (supra) in which quantity of recovery of contraband was also very heavy, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of the justice would be adequately met if the respondent-convict Tota Singh is sentenced to the period already undergone by him during the trial. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Resultantly, the present appeal filed by the State except with the modification in the sentence part as indicated above, stands allowed. Appeal allowed.