Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1274 (PNJ)

Jasveer Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-21

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2002
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of appellants Jasveer Singh, Suba Singh and Jagsir Singh under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous/imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.6.1997, Inspector Joginder Singh along with one Baldev Singh and some other police officials was going in Government Gypsy No. PB-08B/2206 being driven by constable Paramjit Singh for patrol duty from village Baghapurana towards village Mandirawala and when they reached near the canal bridge, a maruti car No. PCS/5955 came from the side of Charik and stopped at some distance on seeing the Police Party. Accused Jagsir Singh ran away from the front seat of the car towards village Mandirawala. The car was apprehended, which was being driven by Jasveer Singh accused and Suba Singh accused was sitting near him on the front seat. Inspector Joginder Singh told the accused that they could opt for being searched before a Gazetted Officer/or a Magistrate and in reply, they opted for being searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, DSP Harcharan Singh was called at the spot and in his presence, Inspector Joginder Singh conducted the search of the car and three bags of poppy husk were recovered from the backseat of the Maruti car. A sample of 250 grams was taken out from each bag and the residue, on weighment, was found to be 40 Kgs. of poppy husk in each bag. The sample parcels and the residue were sealed with seal JS and were taken into possession and seal after use was handed over to ASI Harpreet Singh. A rukka was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which the FIR was recorded. Site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested and the case property was deposited with the MHC. 3. The support of its case, the prosecution inter alia examined PW-4 Inspector Joginder Singh, whose evidence is corroborated by PW-1 ASI Harpreet Singh, apart from other evidence led by the prosecution. 4. Site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested and the case property was deposited with the MHC. 3. The support of its case, the prosecution inter alia examined PW-4 Inspector Joginder Singh, whose evidence is corroborated by PW-1 ASI Harpreet Singh, apart from other evidence led by the prosecution. 4. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that they were falsely implicated. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Surjit Singh and DW-2 Baldev Singh. 5. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be proved, and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants fast submitted that accused Jagsir Singh was not arrested on the spot and his being in possession of the contraband was doubtful. Neither any identification parade was held nor Jagsir Singh is shown to be known to the witnesses earlier. PW-4 Inspector Joginder Singh has stated "I did not know Jagsir Singh alias Billu earlier to this case." It was next submitted that there were material contradictions, on account of which appeal of Jasveer Singh and Suba Singh is liable to be accepted. Learned counsel referred to arrest memo Ex. PF showing that the recovery was effected at 5.00 P.M. which was inconsistent with the statement of the investigating officer, PW-4 Inspector Joginder Singh to the effect that the DSP reached the spot at 5.30 P.M. and recovery was made thereafter. Independent witness Baldev Singh was given up and he appeared as a defence witness. The DSP was not produced, who according to the learned State counsel had died. The fact remains that there is neither independent corroboration nor corroboration by any Gazetted Officer coupled with the contradiction about the time of effecting recovery, which may suggest that the recovery was not effected in the presence of the DSP, which is an important safeguard. The case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. For these reasons, this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted.