G.K. Sharma, J. - (1.)This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 19.8.78, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the Opium Act. The petitioner was sentenced to I year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine he will undergo 6 month rigorous imprisonment by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, maintained the sentence and fine but in default instead of six month rigorous imprisonment he made the order for three months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.)According to the prosecution case the Excise Inspector, on 30th April, 1954, went to Gram Naglia-ka-bas, on the information regarding excisable articles He reached that village at 4.00 p.m. and on private information he raided the house of the petitioner Jesa Ram, and inside the jhupa of the petitioner he seized 3 kg. and 14 chhatak opium in thaila and ' seer 10 chhatak, opium milk in a plastic thali. Both opium and opium milk was seized and sealed at the spot the accused petitioner was arrested. The Excise Inspector, sent the report Ex. P.5, alongwith the accused and the recovered opium and opium milk to S.H.O. Ramgarh. The S.H O. then took sample of opium and opium milk from the sealed a packet sent by the Excise Inspector, in presence of Assistant Collector and Magistrate (Under Training), Sikar and sent to the public analysist for examination. The report of the analysist is Ex. P.7 and according to this report the sample was of opium. The accused was challenged. The learned Magistrate, after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties found the accused guilty under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Opium Act, and sentenced as mentioned above. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner but was unsuccessful.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case the prosecution has failed to prove that the seal which was affixed on the thaila and the bags at the time of the recovery from the house of the petitioner remained intact when the seal was opened before the Magistrate (under training) and also the seal which was fixed on the sample taken before the Magistrate remained intact when it reached to the public analysis for the examination. The arguments is that it was for the prosecution to prove and established beyond reasonable doubt that the seal a fixed on the articles at the time of recovery remained intact. It was also to he established that the seal or. the sample w s not tempered with and remained intact when it reached to the public analyst for examination.