The main legal point established is that substantial evidence of possession of a prohibited substance without a license can lead to conviction under the Opium Act.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Shri Balwant Singh has filed the present criminal revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 11.6.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who affirmed the judgment and order dated 9.11.1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, who convicted the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month for allegedly having been found in possession of opium weighing 3 Kgs 500 grams without any licence or permit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.10.1983 ASI Manjit Singh along with other police officials was going from village Golewala to Kulawala for patrolling on the pavement of Khara Canal and when they reached in the area of village Kulawala on the bridge, the petitioner was found coming from the opposite side and on seeing the police party he tried to slip away and on the basis of suspicion he was apprehended. At that time the petitioner was carrying a Jhola which contained opium weighing 3-1/2 Kgs wrapped in a glazed paper. The Thanedar separated a sample and the remaining bulk was separately sealed. Both the parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of opium, resultantly ruqa Ex. PC was sent to police station for registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. The Thanedar completed other investigation of this case. The sample of the opium was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner and on receipt of its report the petitioner was challaned under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The learned Magistrate after supplying the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution framed charge under Section 9 of the Opium Act against the petitioner.

3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 HC Balwant Singh, PW2 Constable Chattar Singh, PW3 ASI Manjit Singh, PW4 HC Jugraj Singh and also tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner.

4. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it was stated by him that he has been falsely implicated. In defence the petitioner examined DW1 Joginder Singh, DW2 Angrej Singh and DW3 Mukhtiar Singh.

5. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 9.11.1990 held that the petitioner was in possession of the opium without any licence or permit and this finding was also affirmed by the Appellate Court vide impugned judgment.

6. Still not satisfied by the decisions of the courts below, the present revision.

7. I am disposing of this revision with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the respondent and on going through the grounds of revision. No assistance has come from the side of the petitioner.

8. In the revision the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited. It can only disturb the finding if there is a lack of jurisdiction or there is a material irregularity in the appreciation of evidence. In this case the recovery stands established from the statement of ASI Manjit Singh (PW3) whose statement is also supported by HC Balwant Singh (PW1). They have no axe to grind against the petitioner. The recovery is very heavy and it is a chance one and in these circumstances the independent corroboration is not required. It is also not believable that the Investigating officer will plant a huge quantity of opium from his personal resources. Resultantly, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act.

9. With regard to the sentence, the same is hereby reduced to six months. The imposition of fine is not disturbed. With this modification i n the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.