UDHAM SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 9 of the Opium Act for the recovery of 1.10 kilograms of opium and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of substantive imprisonment to a term of six months leaving the fine intact. This revision petition has now been filed against the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) SHRI Harbans Lal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argued that the conviction is based only on the testimony of two police officers and that no non -official witness had been associated at the time of the recovery. The prosecution story is that the Sub -Inspector and the Assistant Sub -Inspector were on patrol duty and searched the Petitioner on suspicion when they met him on a crossing of roads. The search had to be carried out unexpectedly and there was no time for associating any non -official witness. There is, however, no rule of universal application that a conviction cannot be based on the testimony of police officers of such high rank. Shri Harbans Lal relied in this connection on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Kartar Singh v. The State 1966 P.L.R. (S.N. No. 5). In the case cited, both the non -official witnesses had been examined and had failed to support the prosecution and the Court was left only with the evidence of one Head Constable. It was found that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction on the testimony of that lone official witness. There is, however, nothing in the present case to detract from the testimony of two police officers of a much higher rank. In Babu Lal etc. v. The State of Gujrat : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1277, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had held that a conviction for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act could be based on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone. The circumstances in each case would determine the weight or value to be attached to the testimony of a particular witness. The official witnesses are not accomplices so as to necessitate corroboration of their testimony or the attestation of the memos prepared by them as if Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act were to govern the case. These remarks would apply with equal force to a case of search and recovery under the Opium Act.

(3.) SHRI Harbans Lal then argued that the percentages of morphine or meconic acid have not been mentioned in the Chemical Examiner's report and that the stuff recovered is not shown to be 'opium' as defined in Section 3 of the Opium Act, 1878. This definition runs as follows: