CHUHAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo regorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he filed appeal before the learned appellate Court. His appeal was dismissed. Hence, he has filed this revision petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, a police party was on patrol duty. At that time, a secret information was received that the petitioner was indulging in sale and purchase of poppy heads and was possessing the poppy heads. The police party reached the place of recovery and in the meanwhile joined Balwinder Singh Sarpanch who met them in the way. They reached near the house of the petitioner who met them outside his house. He was arrested. He made a disclosure statement and on the basis of which two bags containing poppy husks, one weighing 40 Kgs and the other 20 Kgs. were found in this residential house, buried on the back side under the dung cakes.

(3.) THE independent witness like the Sarpanch was joined and except the police declaration that he was won over, there is nothing to show that he was won over by the petitioner. The prosecution has branded the only independent witness as having been won over before he came into the witness box. Had he been examined as a witness, the Court could have come to know, whether he was won over or not, and when brought in the witness box, he could have been subjected to cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is normally not possible that a person holding the post of a Sarpanch would like to face cross-examination on the allegation of being won over. However, as the witness has been given up, it is not possible for the Court to know, whether he was really won over or not, and when the prosecution gives up an independent witness joined in the search by the police party, inference can be drawn in a given case against the prosecution evidence. As stated earlier, the independent witness joined in the investigation was a Sarpanch and he was joined in the search and given up. I do not accept the version of the prosecution that he was won over, without he being examined as a witness.