J.S. Bedi, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under : S. I. Tejinder Singh P. W. 4 was in village Jamalpur-Sheikhan on 17th July 1961, along with E. S. I. Kartar Singh when he received information that the petitioner Jai Karan had tpium in his possession. He associated Chhota Singh P. W. 1 and Gurbux Singh P. W. 2, from there and went to the house of the petitioner. On interrogation by the Sub-Inspector he disclosed that he had kept concealed 3 1/2 Tolas of opium in his house and that he could get the same recovered. He then led the investigating party to his house and produced the opium from a hole in his house. On being weighed it was found to be 40 grams. On these facts, a case against the petitioner was registered and he was sent up for trial under Section 9 of the Opium Act. When examined under Section 342 of the Criminal P. C., he denied the allegations against him and stated that he was called from his field to Tohana where the two witnesses were not present and that at Tohana he was forced to put his thumb-impressions on certain papers. He further added that this false case was set up against him at the instance of someone who might be inimical to him and who might have reported to the police. In support of his defence he examined two witnesses Kanshi Bam and Tulsi Bam. He was convicted by a Magistrate on 24th February, 1965 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of its payment to further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner went up in appeal which was dismissed by Shri Joginder Singh Chatha, Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, on 2nd April, 1965, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one month maintaining at the same time the fine of Rs. 200. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. The counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the learned Chief Justice given in Cri. B. No. 196 of 1965, D/- 17.9-1966 : reported as AIR 1967 Punj 14, Sadhu Singh v. State, and submitted that the facts in both these cases were similar and the learned Chief Justice in that case acquitted the accused. I, however, find that the contention of the petitioner is not correct because |he facts of these two cases are not identical. In the case before the learned Chief Justice, it was observed that the two non-official witnesses produced by the prosecution were stock-witnesses of the police. The learned Chief Justice also did not believe the disclosure statement on the basis of which the opium was recovered giving various reasons, the chief reason being that the house from where the incriminating article was recovered was in joint possession of a number of per. sons and, therefore, the prosecution in order to prove the exclusive possession of the petitioner took resort to 8.27 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, however, the two non official witnesses are entirely independent and disinterested witnesses. Nothing has been : even : alleged against them. There is also no evidence on the record that the house from where the opium was recovered was jointly lived by someone else. There is, therefore, nothing whatsoever on the basis of which we could reject the prosecution story or hold the case against the petitioner even doubtful.
3. The petitioner is on bail. I, however, do not feel inclined to send him behind the bars. In my opinion, the term of sentence already undergone by him plus the fine of Bs. 200 already imposed would be ample to meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. With this modification, the petition is dismissed.