regards the examination of only the members of police party as witnesses and non-examination of any independent witness, including the driver and conductor of the bus, the accused has not alleged any animus to the police for false implication and moreover, the quantity being a huge one, i.e., 4 kg of opium, could not have been planted by the police. That apart, from personal search, a substantial amount of Rs.4,410/- and a wrist watch were also recovered from the accused. Looking to the quantity of contraband and the amount of money recovered from the possession of the accused, though he was travelling in a bus like an ordinary passenger, the credibility of seizure does not become doubtful. The recovery was effected way back in 1984 and the property was produced in the Court in 1987, therefore, if the seal impression of the case property was damaged and lost in the process of transit, for that reason alone, the prosecution case cannot be discarded. Further, necessary entries in respect of seizures were also made in the roznamcha as stated by DW1. As regards granting benefits of release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in a case where the accused was found to be carrying a huge quantity of 4 kg opium, I am not inclined to accept the prayer as this is not a case which qualifies for taking a lenient view.
