S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) BACHITTAR Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act for having in his possession 3 kg. 100 grams of opium and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 -1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner have been maintained by a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated the 17th September, 1980. The petitioner has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1 -7 -1978, Head -Constable Nasib Chand alongwith Constable Hari Dev was present at the Railway Station Ludhiana, for checking duty when the petitioner alighted from a train with a jhola in his hand. He was stopped on suspicion and on his search in the presence of Gurcharan Singh, P.W., he was found to be carrying aforesaid opium wrapped in a glazed paper. After completing the formalities, the sample taken was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the same was found to be opium. After necessary investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial.
(3.) THE prosecution examined Gurcharan Singh, P.W. 1 and Head -Constable Nasib Chand, P.W. 2, in support of its case. The petitioner's stand was that he was apprehended from his house alongwith Ram Sarup Sarpanch and one Hardev Singh and was falsely implicated in this case. Kidar Nath Constable, Gurdev Singh Lambardar and Constable Gurmit Singh were examined in defence. 3A. The prosecution cam herein seems to bristle with a number of infirmities. The conduct Head -Constable Nasib Chand is not joining with him independent witnesses although available on the railway station renders the prosecution case highly doubtful against the petitioner. This view finds support from Ram Narain v. The State, 1974 C.L.R. 436 in which it has been held as under : "It has been admitted by both Sub -Inspector Jaswant Singh and Excise Inspector Ram Avtar that at a place where the accused was apprehended there were shops which were open at that time. No person from these shops was joined in the raiding party. As independent evidence was available, which has been withheld, it would cast doubt even on the testimony of the official witnesses." In view of the above quoted authority it will not be safe to sustain the conviction of the petitioner on the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer as the same loses its evidentiary value on account of the fact that he joined Gurcharan Singh, who was admittedly a stooge of the police of the worst type.;