The importance of providing the accused with an opportunity to rebut the presumption of conscious possession and the requirement to address infirmities in prosecution evidence.

HARBANS LAL, J

1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision No.723 of 1990 filed by Jita Singh accused as well as Criminal Revision No.729 of 1990 moved by Mukand Singh against the judgment dated 20.8.1990 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the above-mentioned accused persons against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 3.8.1988 rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide which he convicted and sentenced Mukand Singh, Ajit Singh and Jita Singh each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of the fine, the defaulter was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act').

2. Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on January 21, 1985, Sub-Inspector Sudesh Kumar among other police officials including Amar Singh ASI laid “Nakabandi” at the canal bridge in the area of Village Kot Duna. Around 10:15 A.M. Mangal Singh PW by chance turned up there and he was co-opted with the police party. At about 11:00 A.M., a truck bearing registration No.PUK-7217 was spotted approaching from Bhikhi side being driven by Mukand Singh accused. It was intercepted and stopped. Ajit Singh and Jita Singh were sitting by the side of Mukand Singh driver, who made a bid to run away from the spot after alighting from the truck. He along with Jita Singh and Ajit Singh was apprehended. One hundred gunny bags each containing 40 kilograms of poppy husk were found loaded in the truck. After observing usual formalities, the bags were seized. The case was registered. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala for trial of the accused.

3. The accused were charged under Section 9 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Surinder Singh PW1, Sub Inspector Sudesh Kumar PW2, ASI Amar Singh PW3 and closed its evidence by tendering the affidavits Ex.PJ and Ex.PK of formal witnesses and Ex.PH, a report of Chemical Examiner.

4. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. As set forth by the accused Ajit Singh, he was waiting at the Bus Adda Dhanaula for some vehicle. He was present there for the purpose of purchasing vegetables and fruits. The police took him to the Police Station by saying that he was having some stolen material with him and gave him beatings and falsely implicated in this case. Ajit Singh accused came up with the plea that Mukand Singh had a quarrel at Bus Adda from where the police of Dhanaula took him to the police station. When he went there, he was also made to sit in the police station and later on, this case was foisted upon him. Mukand Singh accused stated that he had never been the driver on the alleged truck nor he knows how to drive the truck and that on account of wordy duel, the police of police station Dhanaula whisked him away to the police station, where this case was foisted upon him. In their defence, they examined Constable Gurmeet Singh, 962 Police Station Dhanaula as DW1.

5. The revisions under discussion were listed for arguments number of times besides being displayed on the net nonetheless, none had come forward to argue on behalf of the petitioners.

6. I have heard the learned State Counsel besides, perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The common ground taken up by both the petitioners in their revision petitions are that the prosecution did not join any independent witness at the time of alleged recovery. One Mangal Singh was joined who is a police tout, but he too was given up as allegedly won over. The prosecution has badly failed to link the case pro