Sharma, J.—This is an application by the accused Kanwarlal to revise the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar by which his conviction and sentence under sec. 9 of the Opium Act have been confirmed. The accused was prosecuted in the court of the Extra Magistrate, Iklera on the allegation that while he was going on the road leading from Nasirabad to Path, on the night of the 5th of September, 1951, opium weighing 4 seers and 13 chks. including the cloth in which it was tied up was recovered from his possession by the Sub-Inspector Chandra Prakash Bakani. The Assistant Sub-Inspector Jogindra Nath also accompanied the Sub-Inspector, and it is alleged that at the time of recovery of the opium, Dhulilal, P.W. 1, and Nandlal Nai were also present. The recovery memo of the opium was made and it was signed by these two witnesses and the accused was afterwards challaned under sec. 9 of the Opium Act in the court of the Extra Magistrate, Jhalawar.

2. The accused denied that any opium was recovered from his possession. He pleaded that in fact the opium was in possession of Nanda, P.W. 2, and because, Nanda said that it belonged to the accused, the accused was challaned instead of Nanda. The learned Magistrate was satisfied by the prosecution evidence that the opium was recovered from the possession of the accused and therefore, convicted and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-.Against this conviction and sentence, the accused appealed, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. dismissed the appeal. Now, he has come in revision.

3. It was argued by Mr. D.C. Bajpayee on behalf of the applicant that the prosecution case rested on the evidence of two police employees i.e., the Sub-Inspector Chandra Prakash and the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Joginder Nath and that of two witnesses Nanda and Dhulilal who are said to be the witnesses of the search. It was argued that the evidence of the police employees was interested and the evidence of the two other witnesses i.e., Nanda and Dhulilal about the search could not be relied upon as under sec. 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the witnesses of the search should be respectable witnesses of the locality, Nanda, it was argued was not a respectable witness as he was himself an opium smuggler. As regards Dhulilal, it was argued that he was not a witness of the locality. The ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarkar vs. Hans Raj.(l) was relied upon.

4. On behalf of the State it was argued by Mr. R.A. Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate that the two witnesses who have attested the search memo were the witnesses who were present on the spot at the time of the recovery of the opium. They could by the best witnesses of the search in question. There was no evidence to show that they were not respectable witnesses and the words respectable in this connection does not necessarily mean a man of position. Any witness who is a disinterested witness and not of disreputable character can be said to be a respectable witness within the meaning of sec. 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As regards the locality it was argued that they were present on the spot at the time of recovery and besides Nanda is a resident of Nasirabad which is the nearest village to the place of occurrence. As regards Dhulilal, it was argued that although he belongs to a village which is about ten miles from the place of occurrence,yet he was also on the spot at the time of search and so the search memo is not vitiated and the search was perfectly alright.

5. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. No doubt the Sub-Inspector Chandra Prakash and the Assistant Sub-Inspector Joginder Nath were police employees but merely on that account their evidence cannot be discarded. No other reason has been shown why they should not be believed. It has not been denied that these were the two persons who were present at the time of the arrest of the accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document