Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated November 23, 1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fathegarh Sahib whereby the petitioner was held guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act and upon conviction, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months as well as against the judgment dated May 18, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala partly allowing the petitioners appeal against the above mentioned judgment and order dated November 23, 1989 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, to the extent that after upholding the conviction, the petitioners sentence was reduced from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment without effecting any change in the amount of fine. 2. As per the prosecution case, on July 23, 1985, a police party led by ASI Baisakha Singh was coming to P.S. Mullepur after patrolling in the villages Fagan Majra and Chalela and when they reached on the link road of Chalela, the petitioner was seen coming from the opposite side. On seeing the police, the petitioner got perturbed and turned towards village Nandpur Kesho. Upon suspicion, he was apprehended and was searched which led to the recovery of 10 kgs. of opium from his possession which was wrapped in a glazed paper contained in a tin. 20 grams of opium was taken out as a sample. The sample as well as the remaining opium were put into two separate parcels and were sealed and after the other requisite formalities, a formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. The petitioner was accordingly put to trial. 3. The prosecution examined HC Gulzar Singh (PW-1) and ASI Baisakha Singh (PW-2) and also tendered into evidence the report of the chemical examiner (Ex. PE) as well as the affidavits of MHC Darshan Singh and Constable Rattan Singh respectively. The petitioner pleaded not guilty in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also led defence evidence consisting of Jeet Singh and Norang Singh of his village who appeared as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively. 4. PE) as well as the affidavits of MHC Darshan Singh and Constable Rattan Singh respectively. The petitioner pleaded not guilty in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also led defence evidence consisting of Jeet Singh and Norang Singh of his village who appeared as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively. 4. Relying upon the prosecution version and having held that both of its witnesses are consistent in their respective depositions which cannot be discarded merely because they are official witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of committing an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also repelled the petitioners contention that the prosecution case suffers from doubts as no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery allegedly made on a road near the village. Similarly, the argument that no sanctity could be attached to the case property described as `opium for the reason that the tin in which it was allegedly kept and sealed was found to be in a dilapidated condition, was also negatived for the reason that the tin was found in a poor condition for want of proper arrangements for safe custody in the Malkhana and also on account of the natural wear and tear due to passage of time. Similarly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version that one of the constables was sent to village Fagan Majra to bring the weighing scale etc. whereupon the Investigating Officer weighed 20 grams of opium to take out as a sample. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the prosecution case rests upon the statements of two official witnesses and in the absence of any independent corroboration, it is highly unsafe to convict the petitioner solely on that basis. It is contended that the link evidence is completely missing in as much as Constable Bhag Singh who is alleged to have brought the scale and weights from village Fagan Majra has neither been examined by the prosecution nor has his affidavit been tendered and, thus, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the scale or weights were actually brought. Reiterating the contention that the tin containing `opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner, was found in such a damaged condition that it could be conveniently tampered with, it is argued that HC Gulzar Singh (PW-1) has admitted in his deposition that the material lying inside the tin could be `taken out and again `put in it `without breaking the seal. According to the learned counsel, the poor condition of Malkhana, if any, maintained by the police authorities contrary to the requirement of Rule 20.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, Chapter XXII, Volume III, work to the disadvantage of the petitioner. 7. In reference to the statement of I.O. ASI Baisakha Singh (PW-2), contended that the said witness has admitted that the "sample" had changed various hands before it was sent to the chemical examiner for examination. According to the learned counsel, all those persons who dealt with the said sample have not come forward to depose that while in their custody, the seals of the sample were not tampered with, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the report of the chemical examiner. It was argued that the Courts below have given no valid reason to discard the defence evidence though it deserves same credibility and trustworthiness as is attributed to the prosecution evidence. 8. Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner is a 65 years old person with extremely poor vision which is near to blindness and that he was released on bail by this Court more than 15 years ago and has never misused the said concession, therefore, instead of subjecting him to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, it is fit case to invoke powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In support of these contentions, learned Single Judge for the petitioner has placed reliance upon various judgments including :- (i) Inderjit v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Criminal Cases (P&H) 1 (ii) M.S. Islam v. State of Haryana, 1981 Chandigarh Criminal Cases (P&H) 304 (iii) State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1314 (iv) State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2002(1) RCR(Crl.) 443 (SC) : 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 571 (SC). 9. On the other hand, Mrs. 9. On the other hand, Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, Learned State Counsel contended that it is a case of chance recovery on a link road and despite efforts made by the police, private persons refused to join the recovery proceedings, therefore, no motive can be attributed to the prosecution for not joining an independent witness. It is contended that it is a case of huge recovery which demolishes the theory of false accusation. According to her, the prosecution on the strength of statements of its two witnesses coupled with the affidavits and report of the chemical examiner, has established the charges beyond any doubt. It was also been argued that since the Investigating Officer as also the other witness have categorically deposed that constable Bhag Singh was sent to bring and he actually brought the scale and weights, there was no legal necessity to produce constable Bhag Singh as a witness or to file his affidavit. 10. The star contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution case survives on the statements of two official witnesses only and in the absence of corroboration by some independent witness, the petitioner deserves the benefit of doubt. In order to appreciate this contention, it is to be borne in mind that there cannot be any hard and fast rule for discarding or believing the deposition of an official witness. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, where independent witness was available and could be joined, onus lies upon the prosecution to explain the non-joining of such witness failing which it can be safely inferred that such independent witness may not have supported the prosecution case. In another eventuality, it is quite possible that the Investigating Officer did attempt to join a public person to witness the recovery etc. but either someone was not available or refused to join, therefore, he had no option but to substantiate the allegations through official witness only. No advantage can possibly be taken by an accused in the latter category of cases. There is no such principle that the statement of an official witness, how-so-ever trustworthy or truthful it might be, cannot be accepted unless corroborated by some independent witness, though the Court is required to be over cautious while appreciating the version of an official witness. No advantage can possibly be taken by an accused in the latter category of cases. There is no such principle that the statement of an official witness, how-so-ever trustworthy or truthful it might be, cannot be accepted unless corroborated by some independent witness, though the Court is required to be over cautious while appreciating the version of an official witness. If the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are analysed in the light of afore-said principles, there is no escape but to affirm the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that statements of these two witnesses are consistent and inspire confidence. The efforts made by the Investigating Officer to join a public person at the time of petitioners search are on record and it being a case of `chance recovery it might be that many public persons were not available. Since the version of two official witnesses has found favour with the Courts below and the same otherwise does not suffer from any material irregularity, no interference by this Court to discard the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is warranted. 11. So far as non-production of constable Bhag Singh as a witness and/or his affidavit is concerned, the statement of PW-2 has a material bearing on the issue. In his deposition, he has categorically stated as to how the Scale and Weights were arranged. No dent could be caused to his version in the cross- examination. Similarly, the contention that the tin in which the recovered contraband was kept sealed was in such a damaged condition that it could have been tampered with, has no factual basis. It is true that when the case property was produced in the Court, the tin was found damaged but there is not even a whisper to suggest that the contraband lying in a sealed envelope inside the said tin was also damaged or replaced and/or the seal thereupon was tampered with. The normal wear and tear of the tin and that too with the passage of time, gives no discredit to the prosecution case. 12. So far as the defence witnesses are concerned, suffice to say that both of them belong to the petitioners village and their deposition to suggest as if the petitioner was falsely implicated, is belied by the fact that the police could not have planted a huge recovery of 10 kgs. 12. So far as the defence witnesses are concerned, suffice to say that both of them belong to the petitioners village and their deposition to suggest as if the petitioner was falsely implicated, is belied by the fact that the police could not have planted a huge recovery of 10 kgs. of opium when it could have planted a false case upon the petitioner on the basis of even small quantity. 13. As regards the contention that the sample changed various hands before it reached the chemical examiner, the same appears to be an afterthought as no such categorical suggestion has been put to the Investigating Officer. 14. Coming to the last contention, namely, the mitigating circumstances to justify the petitioners release on probation, it is true that in the case in hand the petitioner was released on bail on 28.5.1990 and no case under the Opium Act and/or under the NDPS Act appears to have been registered against him after the aforesaid date. However, it has been contended by the Learned State Counsel that the petitioner is a habitual offender who has been found guilty and convicted in following such like cases and thus, deserves no sympathy or leniency from this Court :- (i) FIR No. 95 dated 18.8.1983 u/s 9 of the Opium Act Convicted on 15.11.1986 (ii) FIR No. 114 dated 20.10.1983 u/s 9 of the Opium Act Convicted on 25.9.1988 (iii) FIR No. 36 dated 1.5.1985 u/s 9 of the Opium Act Convicted on 31.8.1989 (iv) FIR No. 146 dated 10.12.1982 u/s 9 of the Opium Act Convicted on 13.1.1986 15. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not a first convict, it does not appear expedient to release him on probation. However, having regard to his age, health conditions and the fact that concession of bail has not been misused by the petitioner, the total sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced from one year to six months without any change in the amount of fine. 16. Disposed of accordingly.