S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) CHHOTTA Lal alias Kukoo petitioner was convicted under Section 9(a) of the Opium. Act and sentenced to 2-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3500/- by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, on 7th March, 1980. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. He has new come up in revision.
(2.) ON 3rd May, 1978, Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh alongwith some police officials was going from village Bahadur Singh Wala to Moonak in a Government jeep in connection with excise checking. When he was on Jakhepal-Patran road in the area of Lehra, he received secret information and on that basis a case was registered against the accused in the police station. Thereafter Baja Singh was joined in the police party. About 1-1/2 hours thereafter, the accused came on a motor-cycle. He was stopped and his person was searched. 10kgs. of opium, wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the iron basket attached to the motor-cycle. The sample of opium recovered was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the same was subsequently found be opium. The prosecution case primarily rests on the unimpeached testimony of Head-Constable Jangir Singh and Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh. The only point agitated before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to established that the sample examined by the Chemical Examiner had not been tampered with before it reached his hands. On the strength of the Supreme Court decision reported as State of Rajasthan v.Daulat Ram, AIR 1980 S.C. 1314, he has argued that the link evidence in this regard not being complaint, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. In this context it is worth recalling the true import of Daulat Ram a case, (supra), came up for consideration in Bhagwan Dass. v. The State of Punjab (Crl. Revision No. 64 of 1982) decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd Jan. 1982 wherein it was held that it is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine any or every concerned official within the office of the Chemical Examiner with regard to the safe custody of the sample therein and its failure to do so does not introduce any infirmity in its case.
(3.) FACED with the uphill task of challenging the conviction on merits, within the confines of the revisional jurisdiction, Mr. Harbans Singh very fairly conceded that he was unable to do so.;