Kala Singh vs Union of India

R.L. Anand, J.

Vide this judgment I dispose of four Criminal Revision Nos. 568 and 576 of 1987 filed by Kala Singh petitioner, and 632 and 633 of 1987 filed by Acchar Singh petitioner. All the four revision petitions pertain to one occurrence which took place on 21st April, 1980. In relation to this very occurrence, the Customs Authorities filed Compalints Nos. 135 and 135A of the Customs Act against Kala Singh and Achhar Singh, and the Police also filed criminal proceedings under the general law against these very persons. Shri Harchand Singh Maunder, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide one judgment disposed of two Criminal Appeals Nos. 69 and 60 of 1985, filed by Kala Singh and Achhar Singh separately, on 18th April, 1987. Learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1985 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, who recorded conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act against the accused, i.e. Kala Singh and Achhar Singh, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months more, on the allegations that on 21.4.1980 they were in possession of 23 kgs. of opium without any licence on permit. The said Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, also gave a separate judgment in the challan case on 18th April, 1987 and again affirmed the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, who convicted and sentenced the petitioners under Section 9 of the Opium Act.

First of all I would like to incorporate the allegations of the complaint. According to the complaint on 21.4.1980 secret information was received with the Customs Department to the effect that a car bearing registration No. JKN 1459 will be carrying smuggled goods from Pakistan to India. On the basis of this secret information the Customs Party conducted a traffic check and stopped the said car near village Heer on the drain bridge on AjnalaAmritsar road. Kala Singh petitioner was found sitting on the rear seat of the car while Acchar Singh petitioner was driving the said car. The car was searched in the presence of the officials, the accused persons and some nonofficials witnesses and 27 kgs. of opium of foreign origin wrapped in polythene papers packed in 14 small packets was recovered from the car. The opium was taken into possession. The petitioners could not produce any licence or permit to import the opium from Pakistan. The samples of opium were taken separately and these were sent to Chemical Examiner (Customs), Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, and on examination the contents of these samples were found to be of opium. The accused were interrogated by the Customs Officers and during the course of their interrogation they admitted the possession of the opium of the foreign origin and their statements to this effect were recorded. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused were carrying, removing and concealing the smuggled opium fully knowing that it was smuggled goods and thereby they had contravened the Import Control JUDGMENT No. 17/55 as amended and issued under Section 3(1) of the Imports Control Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Notice of the complaint was issued to the accused and on their appearance, the documents, on which the complainant relied upon, were supplied to them. After recording the preliminary statements of Shri S.K. Luthra, Inspector Customs, and Shri S.K. Sachdeva, Inspector Customs, prima facie case under Section 135 of the Customs Act was made out. It was read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The witnesses already examined were further crossexamined and the complainant also proved various documents Exhibits PA to PH. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit P1) was also tendered into evidence.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. The accused denied these circumstances and pleaded not guilty. When called upon to enter their defence, the accused examined DW1 Harbhajan Singh, DW2 Joginder Singh, DW3 Mohinder Singh and DW4 Subhash Chander.

After relying upon the prosecution story and after rejecting the defence version, both the accused were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above. The petitioners then filed separate appeals in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the same.

Not satisfied with the judgments of the Courts below, present revision petitions have been filed by Kala Singh and Achhar Singh.

Now I narrate the allegations of the prosecution in the challan case. It is alleged that on 21.4.1980 Shri Bhagwan Singh, Superintendent Customs Department, along with his staff, was present on the drain bridge in the area of village Heer in connection with traffic checking. At that time a car bearing registration No. JKN1459 passed through and it was being driven by Achhar Singh accused. The car was stopped and searched. From the dicky of the car, 27 kgs. of opium, wrapped in 14 bags, was recovered. After taking sample from each bag, the samples and the remaining opium were sealed and taken into possession. The samples were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P8. Incident report was prepared as Exhibit PB and the matter was reported to the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, and formal FIR (Exhibit PW4/A) was recorded. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner GradeI, Central Revenue (Customs) for analysis and vide report Exhibit PC it was stated that the samples contained opium. Site plan Exhibit PW4/C of the place of recovery was also prepared and after completion of the investigation of the case, the accused were challaned under Section 9 of the Opium Act, on the allegation that they were found to be in possession of the opium weighing 27 kgs. on the relevant date without licence or permit.

Learned Magistrate on presentation of the challan, supplied the documents, as relied upon by the prosecution, to the accused according to law and framed charge under Section 9 of the Opium Act. It was read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Kishori Lal, PW2 Vijay Bahadur, Inspector Customs, PW3 Bhagwan Singh, Superintendent, Customs Office, and PW 4 SI Jagir Singh. The prosecution also proved on record the documents Exhibits PA, PB and PC and Exhibits PW4/A to PW4/C.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. The accused denied those circumstances and pleaded that the case was false. When called upon to enter into their defence, the accused examined DW1 Joginder Singh and DW2 Shiv Nath.

Learned Magistrate relied upon the prosecution evidence and held that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and while rejecting the defence version, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 21/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each, and in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months.

Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence under Section 9 of the Opium Act, the petitioners filed appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the same, and still aggrieved by the judgment of the Ist appellate Court, present revision petitions have been filed by the accusedpetitioners. It may be mentioned here that Kala Singh has filed two revision petitions through his counsel Shri P.S. Hundal, while Achhar Singh has filed two revision petitions through his counsel Shri Amrik Singh Kalra. As all the four revision petitions are in connection with one incident, therefore, I am disposing of all the four petitions by this judgment.

Before I proceed further I would like to incorporate the reasons for maintaining the conviction and sentence by the first appellate Court, and the same are as under :

"7. The learned counsel for the accusedappellants vehemently argued before me that in this case provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act were not applicable. Furthermore, he has cited certain rulings which I will take up during the discussion. On the other hand, my attention in this connection was drawn to para No. 8 of the complaint wherein it was duly mentioned that the accused were carrying, removing and cancealing the smuggled opium fully knowing that it was smuggled goods and they had contravened the Import Control JUDGMENT No. 17/55 as amended and issued under Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Furthermore, my attention has also been invited to the statement of AW1 Shri S.K. Sachdeva, Inspector Customs, who has stated that on enquiry Achhar Singh had told that gunny bag brought by Kala Singh is lying in the dicky of the car. Similarly, on enquiry Kala Singh told that he was carrying opium in this bag. Furthermore, my attention has been drawn to the statements (Ex. P3 to Ex. PF/1) of both the accused recorded by the Customs officials which are not hit by section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act as per AIR 1971 page 1087 (Supreme Court) ''Parcy Rustomji Basta v. The State of Maharashtra''. It was held that Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a bar to admissibility in evidence of statement made by a person to Customs Officer. Consequently, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has not found favour with me that in this case the provisions of Customs Act are not applicable.

Coming to the merits of the case firstly I will take up the case of Kala Singh accusedappellant. The learned counsel for the accusedappellant has argued that in this case no independent witness of the recovery was examined and the only witnesses of the recovery are the custom officials. Further it is argued that it is in the evidence that there were two persons i.e. Kewal Singh and Gori Chowkidar accompanying the exercise party but none of them have been joined. In this connection he has cited 1985 CC Case 47 ''Man Singh v. The State of Punjab''. I have given the matter a careful consideration, I find that that was a case in which the police had recovered some opium from the accused''s possession but it appears that in that case there were some other infirmities also in the prosecution case. The Police had described the accused as a known smuggler and no question was put to him of being so at the time of recording the evidence. In that case no independent witness was also joined for the alleged recovery. But in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Otherwise also I find that there is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of witnesses who are official witnesses of the Customs Department.

Regarding the taking of sample also it has been argued that the link evidence in this case is missing and no affidavit of the concerned officials have been filed. Furthermore, it was argued that the seal in this case was not handed over to any independent person. Regarding the filing of the affidavits, I find that in this case it is clear from the report of the Chemical Examiner itself that the samples was despatched to it by post. Therefore, I find that in such circumstances, the filing of the affidavits need not be insisted upon. Regarding handing over the seal to any independent person, the learned Addl. P.P. has cited 1982 Crl. L.J. 1176 ''Piara Singh v. State of Punjab'', Full Bench ruling of our own High Court, in which it was held that the law does not require the seal used for sealing case property must be handed over to a non official, nor it is mandatory that such non official must be examined during the trial. Therefore, these contentions of the learned counsel for the accusedappellants have not appealed to me.

Taking the case of other accused, i.e., Achhar Singh who was admittedly the driver of the car from which the alleged recovery was made, it has been argued vehemently that no conscious possession on his part is proved. On this point, the learned counsel for the accusedappellants has cited certain authorities with which I will deal presently. In 1979 CLR page 249 ''Nirmal Singh v. The State of Haryana'' (Punjab and Haryana), the recovery was effected from a truck of which the accused was admittedly a driver and the plea of the accused was that he had no knowledge that the bags loaded in the truck by his coaccused contained poppy husk and he was given to understand that the same contained poultry feed. However, in the present case the statement of the accused was recorded by the Customs officials in which he admitted his being charged earlier for transportation of contraband opium. The other rulings cited are 1985 CC Cases 211 (Punjab and Haryana) ''Ajaib Singh v. The State of Punjab'' in which case the accused was alleged to have been driving car with coaccused sitting on the rear seat from which two bags containing 10 kgs. of opium were recovered. In that case it was held that it may be that the accused had no suspicion about the loading of the contraband opium in the car. In 1985 CC cases 291, (Punjab and Haryana High Court) ''Kashmir Singh v. The State of Haryana'', again 20 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the accused. In that case number of discrepancies were found in the testimony of the official witnesses. In 1977 Crl. L.J. 148 (Rajasthan High Court) ''Gurdayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan'', a huge quantity of opium was recovered from the truck and the driver had not stopped the truck when asked by the Station House Officer to do so, it was held that both circumstances are insufficient to maintain conviction.

However, the learned Addl. P.P. has cited 1976 PLR page 288 ''Jaswant Singh and another v. The State of Haryana'', in which huge quantity of opium was recovered from a truck. It was held that in such case onus shifts to the accused to show the existence of the circumstances that they had not committed the offence with which they were charged. Another ruling cited is 1973 Crl. L.J. Page 1537 (SC) ''Inder Sain v. State of Punjab'', in which it was held that u/s 10 of the Opium Act, for the presumption to arise it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish conscious possession. In the present case, I find that clearly the contraband opium was recovered from the vehicle. The statement of Achhar Singh accusedappellant, the driver of the car was also recorded by the custom authorities. In this connection is AIR 1966 (SC) 935 ''Sachidananda Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Sitaram Aggarwal and another'' it was held that when a person does any overt act in relation to prohibited goods which he knows to be such and the act is done in consequence of previous arrangement or agreement he would be doing an act concerned in dealing with prohibited goods.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate had rightly convicted both the accusedappellants, namely, Kala Singh and Achhar Singh. Therefore, I find that the conviction was rightly recorded. It is, therefore, hereby confirmed."

The above reasons were advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, while disposing of the appeals under Section 135 and 135A of the Customs Act.

Now I reproduce the reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge when he dismissed the appeals of both the petitioners under Section 9 of the Opium Act, which are as under :

"8. Firstly, I will take up the case of Kala Singh accused appellant. The learned counsel for the accusedappellant. The learned counsel for the accusedappellant has argued that in this case no independent witness of the recovery was examined and the only witnesses of the recovery are the custom officials. Further it is argued that it is in the evidence that there were two persons i.e. Kewal Singh and Gori Chowkidar accompanying the excise party but none of them have been joined. In this connection he has cited 1985 CC Cases 47 ''Man Singh v. The State of Punjab''. I have given the matter a careful consideration. I find that that was a case in which the police had recovered some opium from the accused''s possession but it appears that in that case there were some other infirmities also in the prosecution case. The police had described the accused as a known smuggler and no question was put to him of being so at the time of recording the evidence. In that case no independent witness was also joined for the alleged recovery. But in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Otherwise also I find that there is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the witnesses who are official witnesses of the Customs Department.

Regarding the taking of the sample also, it has been argued that the link evidence in this case is missing and no affidavit of the concerned officials has been filed. Furthermore, it was argued that the seal in this case was not handed over to any independent person. Regarding the filing of the affidavits, I find that in this case it is clear from the report of the Chemical Examiner itself that the sample was despatched to it by post. Therefore, I find that in such circumstances, the filing of the affidavits need not be insisted upon. Regarding handing over the seal to any independent person, the learned Addl. P.P. has cited 1982 Crl. L.J. 1176, Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, a Full Bench ruling of our own High Court, in which it was held that the law does not require the seal used for sealing case property must be handed over to a non official must be examined during the trial. Therefore, these contentions of the learned counsel for the accusedappellant have not appealed to me.

Taking the case of other accused, i.e., Achhar Singh, who was admittedly the driver of the car from which the alleged recovery was made, it has been argued vehemently that no conscious possession on his part is proved. On this point, the learned counsel for the accusedappellant has cited certain authorities, with which I will deal presently. In 1979 CLR Page 249 ''Nirmal Singh v. The State of Haryana'' (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the recovery was effected from a truck of which the accused was admittedly a driver and the plea of the accused was that he had no knowledge that the bags loaded in the truck by his coaccused contained poppy husk and he was given to understand that the same contained poultry feed. However, in the present case the statement of the accused was recorded by the Custom officials in which he admitted his being engaged earlier for transportation of contraband opium. The other rulings cited are 1985 CC Cases 241 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) ''Ajaib Singh v. The State of Punjab'', in which case the accused was alleged to have been driving car with coaccused sitting on the rear seat from which two bags containing 10 kgs of opium were recovered. In that case it was held that it may be that the accused had no suspicion about the loading of the contraband opium in the car. In 1985 CC Cases 291, Punjab and Haryana High Court ''Kashmir Singh v. The State of Haryana'' again 20 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the accused. In that case number of discrepancies were found in the testimony of the official witnesses. In 1977 Crl. L.J. 148 (Rajasthan High Court) ''Gurdyal Singh v. State of Rajasthan'', a huge quantity of opium was recovered from the truck and the driver had not stopped the truck when asked by the Station House Officer to do so. It was held that both circumstances are insufficient to maintain conviction.

However, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has cited 1976 PLR Page 288 ''Jaswant Singh and another v. The State of Haryana'' in which huge quantity of opium was recovered from a truck. It was held that in such case onus shifts to the accused to show the existence of the circumstances that they had not committed the offence with which they were charged. Another ruling cited is 1973 Crl. L.J. Page 1537 (SC) ''Inder Sain v. State of Punjab'' in which it was held that u/s 10 of the Opium Act, for the presumption to arise it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish conscious possession. In the present case, I find that clearly the contraband opium was recovered from the vehicle. The statement of Achhar Singh accused appellant, the driver of the car was also recorded by the customs authorities. In this connection in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 955 Sachidananda Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Sitaram Aggarwal and another'', it was held that when a person does any overt act in relation to prohibited goods which he knows to be such and the act is done in consequence of previous arrangement or agreement he would be doing an act concerned in dealing with prohibited goods. Similarly, in 1971 AIR Page 1087 (Supreme Court) ''Percy Rustomji Basta v. The State of Maharashtra'' it was held that Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a bar to admissibility in evidence of statement made by a person to customs officer. Obviously, the act of the second accused, i.e., Achhar Singh appellant falls within the ambit of the provisions of the above law and it cannot be said that his conscious possession was not proved."

At the cost of repetition, I may state that the reasons advanced by the first appellate Court in both the appeals are more or less similar.

A concerted effort was made by Shri P.S. Hundal, Advocate, and Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate, in order to secure the acquittal of their clients and the first argument which was raised by them was that the case in hand was a case of secret information. The prosecution associated two witnesses, namely, Kewal Singh and Gore Lal Chowkidar to witness the alleged recovery of the opium and both the witnesses have not been examined at the trial and in this view of the matter a reasonable dent has been caused, making the entire story of the prosecution doubtful.

The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners may look alluring at the first instance, but on my deeper scrutiny I do not attach any weight to these submissions. The mandate of the law is that on receipt of a secret information, a Customs Officer or an Assessing Officer is supposed to associate an independent person in order to lend credence to his investigation. If that independent witness is not willing to support the allegations of the prosecution for one reason or the other, such as he might have been won over by the accused, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be thrown into the dust. Learned counsel for the petitioners have no answer to the proposition that why the Investigating Officer became inimical visa vis the petitioners and from where huge quantity of opium weighing 27 kgs. could be procured by him from his personal resources. Present petitioners have been arrested from a place, which is very close to the IndoPakistan border. From their interrogation it also appears that they had been indulging in the trade of smuggling goods. Such persons can very easily win over the witnesses and this has exactly happened in the present case. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the nonexamination if Kewal Singh and Gore Lal only puts me to alert that the witnesses are already before the Court and their statements must be examined and searched with due care and caution. After scanning the statement of the Investigating Officer, I have come to this conclusion that he had no enmity with the petitioners and his sole statement can be relied upon. He is a Public Officer and the law is well settled. The weight of the statement of such official witness is the same as is attached to the statement of a nonofficial. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to convince me during the course of arguments that why the Investigating Officer was deposing against the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I repel the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners when they stated that the independent witness has not corroborated the evidence of the Investigating Officer and that no cogent reasons have been given by the prosecution as to why they had not examined Sarvshri Kewal Singh and Gore Lal Chowkidar.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the benefit of doubt should go to their clients as the prosecution has not been able to complete the link evidence in this case.

Again I am not in a position to agree with the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the statement of the Investigating Officer that the samples were duly sealed and then were sent by registered post to the office of the Chemical Examiner and vide report (Exhibit P1) of the complaint case (This report is original) the Chemical Examiner has certified that the samples forwarded to him had been received by registered post and on analysis those were found to be containing opium under the Opium and Drugs Act. At no point of time it has been mentioned by the Chemical Examiner that the seals of the samples had been tampered or that the samples were not fit for analysis. There is a presumption of correctness when an official act is discharged in due course. When the sample has been sent by post by the Assessing Authority and those very samples were found intact with seals and tallied with the sample seals and in the opinion of this Court there is no missing link in the evidence. Present is a case where the sealed parcels of the opium and the samples remained in the custody of the Customs Department. The samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner directly by registered post. It is not necessary in these circumstances to hand over the seal to an independent person or to hand over the sealed samples to an independent agency. This Court is of the opinion that no benefit can be extended to the petitioners for the alleged missing link evidence.

Now I take up the individual argument which was advanced by Shri A.S. Kalra, Advocate, who was representing Shri Achhar Singh petitioner. Story of the prosecution is that Achhar Singh was driving the vehicle while Kala Singh was sitting on the rear seat. Mr. A.S. Kalra submitted that Achhar Singh could not have the knowledge that his coaccused Kala Singh was carrying opium in the dicky of the car and at the most the knowledge of possession can only be attributed to Kala Singh and not to Achhar Singh.

The argument is again devoid of any merit. Achhar Singh was duly interrogated by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act in which he had confessed that it was known to him through Shri Kala Singh that the opium was being carried in the car. It is not a case of recovery in the ordinary circumstances. The allegations of the prosecution are that the opium was smuggled from Pakistan to India. The recovery has been effected from a place which is very close to the IndoPakistan Border. Also it has come during the course of interrogation that both the petitioners used to indulge in the smuggling activities. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that Achhar Singh is totally innocent.

Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Man Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) RCR (Crl.) 265 : 1985 CC Cases 47 (HC). This citation is not applicable to the facts in hand. The benefit of doubt in the cited case was given to the accused mainly on the ground that the defence version of the accused was wrongly appreciated throughout by the Courts below. In the present case both the Courts below have rightly discussed the prosecution evidence and then came to the conclusion about the involvement of both the petitioners. Reliance was also placed on Ajaib Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) RCR (Crl.) 450 : 1985 CC Cased 241 (HC), by Shri A.S. Kalra in support of his client Achhar Singh. The authority relied upon by Shri Kalra is again distinguishable on facts. It has come on the records of the complaint case that during the course of interrogation Shri Achhar Singh has admitted that he was made to aware by Kala Singh about the possession of the opium and that the opium was lying in the boot of the car. Similar to this effect is the statement of Kala Singh that his coaccused Achhar Singh was aware about his activities. In these circumstances it has to be inferred that both the petitioners were in joint possession of the opium and they were in conscious possession thereof. Reliance was also placed on Kashmir Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1985 CC Cases 291 (HC). This authority is on its own facts. Mr. Kalra also drew the attention of this Court on State of Punjab v. Chanan Singh, 1992(1) RCR (Crl.) 644 , and stated that the record of the prosecution case is barren with regard to the handling of the sample of the opium. In the cited case the sample was not sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner by post. Rather there was no evidence led by the prosecution that the sample was deposited with Head Constable at the Police Station and then it was despatched to the office of the Chemical Examiner. In these circumstances it was held by his Lordship that mere production of the report of the Chemical Examiner is of no use. In the present case there is enough evidence to show that the Customs Authorities after preparing the samples of the opium despatched them to the office of the Chemical Examiner, who found the seals thereon intact which tallied with the sample seal. There is a presumption of correctness attached to the official acts. No further evidence was required on the part of the prosecution.

Then it was submitted by Shri P.S. Hundal and Shri A.S. Kalra that the sentence awarded by the Courts below is excessive and it should be reduced. This Court again is not in a position to extend any sympathy to the petitioners, who are bootleggers and were responsible for administering slow poison to the society and our youth. Besides that they had caused loss to the revenue and they tried to play havoc with the Society by importing and smuggling large quantity of opium without any licence or permit. The legislature in its wisdom has repealed the provisions of Section 9 of the Opium Act and by introducing the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This Act has been brought for the purpose of curbing the illegal activities of the smugglers and bootleggers, who are trying to play havoc in the society. Stringent punishment has been provided under the present Act. No doubt the petitioners were being prosecuted under Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 9 of the Opium Act, yet this Court can well take notice of the fact that both the petitioners had tried to smuggle the contraband articles across the frontiers of the country and they are not ordinary consumers, the heavy recovery itself suggests that the object of both the petitioners was to earn huge profits by the sale of the opium in the market or to the innocent consumers. Both the petitioners wanted to make the public addict and such antisocial activities cannot be taken lightly.

Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The petitioners do not deserve any sympathy of the Court in the matter of sentence. Hence all the four criminal revisions are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.