THE REPORT OF THE CHEMICAL EXAMINER IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAMPLE WAS INTACT AND AGREED WITH THE SAMPLE SEAL SENT.

C.S.TIWANA, J.

1. This appeal on behalf of the State is directed against the judgement dated January 9, 1980, of the Additional Sessions Judge. Bhatinda, whereby Nachhattar Singh, the respondent, was acquitted of the offence under S.9(a) of the Opium Act. He had previously been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa, by judgement dated October 17, 1978, for the said offence and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 500.00 . It was in appeal against that judgement that the acquittal of the respondent took place.

2. It had been alleged against the respondent that on October 27, 1977 in the area of village Tamkot opium weighing 1.020 kg was recovered from his possession, for the keeping of which he did not have any permit. Head Constable Kashmir Singh PW 2 accompanied by Constable Joginder Singh PW 1 and some other Constables was returning by an official tempo after the investigation of some case at village Burj Hari, and when he was at a distance of about 150 yards from the bus stop of village Tamkot, the respondent was seen going in some suspicious circumstances while holding a jhola. He was arrested and the opium in the quantity already mentioned was recovered from him. Thereafter 10 gm of opium was separately sealed and it was then got examined from the Chemical Examiner to the Punjab Government at Patiala. 2.2 per cent morphine was found in that sample of opium. The remaining opium had been separately sealed. It was the seal of Head Constable Kashmir Singh having an inscription of K. S. which was used for sealing both the parcels of opium. After use the seal was entrusted for safe custody to Constable Joginder Singh PW 1. The conviction of the respondent was primarily based on the statements as made by Constable Joginder Singh PW 1 and Head Constable Kashmir Singh PW 2, Affidavits of Constable Gurnam Singh PW 3 and Head Constable Gurbakhash Singh PW 4 were filed for showing that the sample of opium subsequently sent to the Chemical Examiner had not been tampered with by anybody while it remained deposited at Police Station, Mansa, where the case against the respondent had been got registered by Head Constable Kashmir Singh. An intimation through a ruqa had been sent by Head Constable Kashmir Singh at 1.20 p.m. on October 27, 1977, after the recovery of the opium and the first information report was recorded at Police Station. Mansa, at 2.10 P.M. that day.

3. Before the trial Court some discrepancies in the statements of the two witnesses of recovery were pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. They were not considered sufficient for disbelieving the witnesses. The respondent had taken this plea that on a day prior to the alleged recovery he had been arrested from his village Khialan Malakpur and subsequently false case under the Opium Act was made out against him. He examined Hakam Singh DW 1 and Inder Singh DW 2 who deposed that the respondent had been arrested in their presence. This evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court took note of a Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Boota Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1980) 82 Pun LR 202 : (1980 Cri LJ 336) and for that reason gave this finding that the material recovered from the respondent did not stand proved to be opium. The said authority having been overruled in Inder Singh V/s. State of Punj., 1981 Chand LR (Cri) 114 (a Division Bench ruling), the learned Counsel for the respondent was unable to support the acquittal merely on this ground that the recovery alleged to have been effected from the respondent was not one of opium. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss the merits of the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent has also not urged anything for disbelieving the recovery. We agree with the appreciation of the prosecution evidence as done by the trial Court and hold that the respondent had i