SHRIMAL, J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10-8-1976 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi affirming the judgment of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bundi whereby he convicted the accused-petitioner under S. 9a and 9b of the Opium Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of the payment of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
(2.) THE prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that on December 13, 1968 at 6. 45 A. M. P. W. 1 Lakhan Lal, and others stopped the vehicle No. RSL 7300, boarded for Jaipur from Kota, near village Balop. THE search revealed that the accused- petitioner had a bag under his left hip. THE passengers were got out one by one, and the opium recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner was seized vide Ex. P. 1. A sample of the opium was taken and divided into two parts of 30 Grams each. THE seizure memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared on the spot in the presence of the Motbirs. THE opium recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner was weighed and sealed. THE samples were separately sealed. THE recovery memo is Ex. P. 1, which bears the signatures of the accused-petitioner and the Motbirs. THE first information report Ex. P. 5 of this incident was lodged at the Police Station, Talera by Ram Avtar. THE sample of the opium was sent to the Chemical Examiner, and Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur for analysis. THE Analyst's report is Ex. P. 7. THE Public Analyst noted before analysing the sample that the seals of the sample received by him were in tact, unbroken and bearing the exact likeness to the seal impression given on the covering letter. This fact has been noted by the Public Analyst in Ex. P. 7. THE Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bundi, and later on it was transferred to the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bundi. THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 7 witnesses viz. P. W. 1 Lakhanlal, Sub-Inspector, Opium Department, P. W. 2 Motilal, P. W. 3 Lalu Ram, driver of the vehicle of the Opium Department, PW. 4 Abdul Aziz, Head Constable of Police, who recorded the first information report Ex. P. 5, P. W. 5 Shive Dansingh, Police Constable of Police Station, Talera, was examined to prove the delivery of the sample of the opium to the Public Analyst. P. W. 6 P. N. Acharya is the scribe of Ex. P. 1 and a Girdawar of the Opium Department, Chittorgarh P. W. 7 Mohammad Hassim is the Officer investigating this case. THE accused denied his complicity in the crime and stated that the Inspector concerned had asked him about the ownership of the opium, but he disowned it He did not examine any witness in support of his defence. THE learned Magistrate, placing reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-petitioner was in possession of the opium which was being transported by him. He found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S. 9 A and S. 9b of the Opium Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. THE aggrieved accused-petitioner challenged the verdict of the trial court before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi. THE learned Judge held that 1 Kg. and 150 Grams of contraband opium was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner on December 13, 1968. He further held that this contraband opium was in conscious possession of the accused-petitioner on December 13, 1968. On the basis of the above finding he dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition before me. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner has vehemently challenged the finding of the trial court on a number of grounds. There cannot be any controversy on the point that the fate of the case depends on the veracity of the statements of three witnesses viz PW 1 Lakhanlal, P. W. 2 Motilal and P. W. 6, P. N. Acharya. P. W. 1 Lakhan Lal stated that on the night of December 12, 1968 the Opium Inspector Ram Avtar was on checking duty. In the morning at 6. 45 A. M. Taxi No. RSL 7300 was passing on Kota-Bundi route. It was stopped and checked. The accused-petitioner was found sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. Two other persons were also sitting beside him. The accused petitioner Tarachand was holding the bag under his hip. The colour of the bag was 'khakhi', which had a stripe of blue colour. Inside the bag there was another bag with a chain. The bag was seized in the presence of the Motbirs. It was opened and inside it a plastic bag was found, which contained opium. The opium seized from the possession of the accused-petitioner was 1 Kg. 150 Grams. The witness further stated that the opium recovered was sealed in the presence of the Motbirs, and that the accused-petitioner was asked to get up, when the bag Art. 1 was found concealed under his legs In cross-examination he stated that at the time of checking two other persons were also sitting beside Tarachand on the back seat of the vehicle. All of them were asked to come out of the vehicle. Thereafter the bag was brought out by the witness P. W. 2 Motilal stated that he, in the company of P. W. 6 P. N. Acharya and P. W. 1 Lakhan Lal, stopped the vehicle No. RSL 7300 on December 13, 1968 at 6. 45 A. M. The passengers sitting in the vehicle were checked. At that time the accused-petitioner Tarachand was sitting on a bag concealed under his hip. The bag was of 'khakhi' colour and it had a blue stripe. On enquiry the accused admitted that the bag belonged to him. The bag seized from the possession of the accused was opened and contraband opium was recovered from it. Two samples of 30 Grams each were taken from the opium seized by the Inspector. The seized opium and its samples were sealed in the presence of the Motbirs. The first information report of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Talera by the concerned Prosecuting Inspector of the Opium Department. More or less similar is the statement of P. W. 6 P. N. Acharya. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has pleaded that the possibility of the bag Art. 1 being placed by someone else in the vehicle has not been ruled out. His contention is that while the vehicle was running on Kota Jaipur road the bag might have been slipped by someone else towards the hip of the accused and the accused might have been caught due to his inadvertence. All this is unacceptable conjecture and it needs no emphasis to state that neither mere remote possibilities nor remote probabilities nor mere doubt which are not reasonable can be held to be good grounds for setting aside the conviction of accused person and more so in this case which has been upheld by the two courts below. The second contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that there are major contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding the place from which the bag containing the contraband opium was recovered and the evidence regarding the identity of the person recovering the bag is also contradictory, as such the evidence regarding recovery of contraband opium from the possession of the accused-petitioner cannot be relied upon. P. W. I Lakhan Lal very clearly stated that the bag containing the opium was kept concealed by the accused-petitioner under his hip. Same is the statement of P. W. 2 Motilal. Agreed that P. W. 6 P. N. Acharya stated that Tarachand (accused) had the bag under his thigh. I do not find any contradiction in these statements. The possession of an article under thigh or hip means one and the same thing. It is a distinction without difference. Keeping the bag under the thigh or hip only reveals the anxiety of the accused-petitioner to keep the article concealed so that it may not be detected and slip down to the other side of the vehicle. P. W. 1 Lakhanlal stated in the examination-in-chief that the bag containing the opium was kept concealed under the hip of the accused. In cross-examination he stated that all the three passengers sitting on the back seat including Tarachand were asked to go out of the vehicle and thereafter the witness lifted the bag and brought it out. P. W. 2 Motilal stated that he did not check the vehicle, but simply observed that the bag containing the opium was concealed by the accused-petitioner under his hip. The checking was done by P. I Ram Avtar. P. W. 6 P. N. Acharya stated that he checked the passengers under the supervision of P. I Ram Avtar. The accused-petitioner was suspected and was asked to stand up. At that stage a bag of contraband opium was recovered from the accused-petitioner lying under his left hip. Even if it cannot be indubitably ascertained as to who out of the four employees of the Opium Department actually checked the vehicle and lifted the bag, it is of little avail to the defence, because all the three witnesses are consistent on the point that at the time of checking when the accused-petitioner was asked to get up, he was keeping the bag containing contraband opium concealed under him and was sitting over it and the recover) was made by the raiding party working under the supervision of Ram Avtar (since deceased ). Photographic picturisation of an incident cannot be expected from the witnesses who are not tutored and little turns upon on indifferent incompatibilities. Inspite of searching cross-examination nothing has been brought out in the statements of these witnesses on the basis of which the veracity of their statements can be doubted The two courts below for good and sufficient reasons have placed reliance on the statements of these witnesses. This court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not expected to reappraise the evidence. I find no reason to reverse the finding of fact, regarding possession of opium by the accused-petitioner, arrived at by the two courts below. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the independent witnesses have not been examined. In so far as neither Ram Avtar, leader of the raiding party, nor other occupants of the Taxi were examined. As such, he held that an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel, since P. W. 6 P. N. Acharya, scribe of the seizure memo Ex. P. 1, stated that by the time the witnesses were examined Ram Avtar was dead and as such the accused-petitioner has no legitimate cause to make any grievance regarding non-examination of Ram Avtar. Whereas prosecution is not bound to examine each and every witness, there was none to prevent the accused-petitioner from examining whatever other passengers he wanted to. But this he did not choose to do. The mere fact that the witnesses in this case are employees of the opium department is not enough to discard their evidence. No reason has been shown for their hostility to the petitioner. The statement of a witness is to be considered on its merits and intrinsic worth. It can and should be doubted when it is tainted or otherwise palpably tutored. The non-examination of a particular witness cannot be a ground for discarding cogent and reliable evidence of a witness examined on oath. The two courts below have rightly held that the accused-petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband opium and that he meant to transport it. It's being contraband opium, has not been disputed at all, so needs no comment from me. The jurisdiction under sec. 439, Cr. P. C. , is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is some glaring defect of procedure or a manifest error on the point of law leading to flagrant miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the accused has failed to make out a case for interference in revision. I, therefore, uphold the conviction of the accused-petitioner under sec. 9a and 9b of the Opium Act. Now remains the question of the sentence to be imposed. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner has urged that his client is a respectable petty businessman. The occurrence is of the year 1968, and a period of eight years has elapsed in between the date of the occurrence and the hearing of the revision petition. Eight years of prosecution is a long ordeal deterrent enough to inhibit future anti-social adventures. The learned counsel submits that his client will now turn a new leaf in life and as such the sentence awarded by the courts below may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioner.
(3.) THE transporters of contraband opium deserve little sympathy and such offenders cannot be said to be respectable in any sense. India had been facing an economic crisis. Transporting, smuggling of opium, gold and other contraband articles has had a disastrous effect on the States' efforts to stabilize the country's economy. Smugglers, hoarders, adulterators, transporters and sellers of contraband articles have been busy in their underworld activities because the punishment awarded to such persons had not been deterrent enough to halt the invisible economic aggressor. THE ineffectiveness of the prosecution in arresting the wave of white colour crimes is bound to disturb the Judge's conscience. A Court is not a computer which registers what is fed into it answers by mechanical intelligence but a humanist hunting down the truth with impartial tools unbiased but committed to conscience, objective truth and public good. Offence regarding contraband opium have a growing tendency and a serious view therefore is required to be taken against them. THE businessman, alleged to be coming from higher strata of life, should not have scant regard for the law of the country, which are for public good for protecting the revenue and economic life of the society. THE offences regarding contraband opium are of the species of ''economic crimes" which must be curbed effectively. This revision petition has no force, and it is dismissed summarily. .;