9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 9A of the Opium Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Cr. Case No. 630/84 decided on 26-9-1987, and against this conviction and sentence applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Shahdol. In Cr. Appeal No. 50/87 decided on 1-10-1988 the conviction and sentence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant it has mainly been submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in placing reliance on the sole testimony of Jayendra Singh (PW 1) who was also Investigating Officer in the case and as such he -was an interested witness. There was no independent witness examined in the case on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the applicant/accused was found in possession of opium. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m which was seized from his possession, as per seizure-memo Ex. P-1. Both the courts below have rightly placed reliance on the version of Jayendra Singh (PW 1) as his testimony stands unchallenged. Regarding the fact that the accused was found in possession of 10 Gm. opium which was seized from his possession, Sub-Inspector R.N. Agnihotri (PW 2) had examined the articles seized from the applicant/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely implicated him. Thus, there is no illegality committed by the courts below in holding applicant/accused Surajbali guilty of the offence under Section 9A of the Opium Act. As regards sentence awarded to applicant Surajbali Tiwari the same cannot be said to be very harsh and hence, in my opinion, the same call for no interference in this revision. 7. There is no merit in this revision petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
