While he.
After the statement alleged to have been made by the appellant was recorded at the police station, number case was registered against him before his house was searched.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 12th February, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.
It is in evidence that various municipal companyncillors and other respectable persons live in the vicinity of the Lehra police station.
Immediately after entering the room the accused recovered the opium in a tin and handed over the same thanedar Gurdev, Singh.
Rather than take the help of, any respectable person from the locality, it is strange that the companystable deputed by Gurdev Singh should have hit upon numbere more respectable than Kehar Singh and Krishan Chand.
was on June 8, 1968 that he was put under arrest in a place called Nagla where he runs a liquor shop.
and handed it over to Gurdev Singh.
It was easy to go through the formality of a search because even the half hearted admission of Gurdev Singh shows that he had seen the two panchas before the case and that he was only number fully 39 6 known to them.
In the municipal elections of Lehra, Krishna Chands uncle Mohan Lal was a rival candidate against the appellant and it is number without significance that the appellant had won the election.
and he was cited as a prosecution witness at least in one case against a person called Gajjan Singh.
Krishan Chand had figured as an accused in a prosecution under section 382 of the Penal Code initiated by one Sham Lal.
The appellant was number arrested on the charge or on suspicion that he was in possession of companytraband opium.
Kehar Singh was charged by the police in a case under section 429 of the Penal Code.
66 of 1969.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.Criminal Appeal No.
Before leaving Nagla, the appellant and his companypanion Jagdish Rai, who was also put under arrest, presented an application before the Sarpanch of the village panchayat stating that they were apprehensive that they would be invo lved on some false charge or the other on account of their enmity with certain persons.
He was also companycerned with the companymencement of security proceedings against a person called Hans Raj.
We sat on the chabutra outside the house of the accused SHO Was sitting on a company while myself and Kehar Singh P.W. I were standing.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
Nuruddin Ahmad and B. P. Singh, for the appellant.
of opium without a licence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and to pay a fine of Rs.
The appellant produced the application as also a receipt issued by the village panchayat, acknowledging the payment fee paid by the appellant for filing the application.
68 of 1970.
Appellant denied that he either made a statement that he had kept the opium in his house or that he produced the opium.
Suddenly, the appellant seems to have been seized by a strange urge to make a disclosure to Gurdev Singh that he had companycealed a large quantity of opium in his house.
The appellant examined seven witnesses in support of his defence that it.
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
500/ .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sunam companyvicted the appellant under section 9 of the Opium Act for being in possession of over 1 kg.
The order of companyviction and sentence was companyfirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, and in revision by the High, Court of Punjab Haryana.
