Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 637 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Amar Singh Alias Ambar Singh

2002-07-05

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This appeal arises out of order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 10.10.1991 in a case arising out of FIR No. 118 dated 5.4.1986 under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Mamdot. 2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the accused are that on 30.3.1996, Inspector Chanwar Singh of Border Security Force was informed about the movement of unidentified person on international border of India and Pakistan. The said Inspector Chanwar Singh reached the spot and recovered 14 bags containing heroin from the land belonging to accused Amar Singh near Pillar No. 197/1, which after weighing was found to be 360 kilograms. The prosecution relied upon confessional statement of Amar Singh made before Shri V.K. Mahajan, Inspector Custom on 14.3.1989. 3. After appreciating the evidence the learned Additional Sessions judge found that the best evidence in the shape of revenue record to determine the ownership of the field from where recovery was effected was not produced nor even khasra numbers have been mentioned in the case. The land was identified only from Pillar No. 197/1. It was also found that even proof of ownership of the land would not be sufficient to implicate the accused as any person from across the border can place any heroin unless it is established that such contraband was put in connivance with the accused. The learned trial Court also found that the case falls within the jurisdiction of police and not within the jurisdiction of Custom Department after recording the FIR at Police Station, Mamdot and the police has failed to comply with the provisions particularly of Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act. It was also found that samples from the recovered heroin were never drawn in the presence of the accused and the contents of 14 bags were mixed up and only then the samples were drawn. 4. We have heard Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the appellant State of Punjab and Shri S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent accused and have perused the record and find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 5. 4. We have heard Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the appellant State of Punjab and Shri S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent accused and have perused the record and find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 5. The primary argument of Shri Randhawa, learned State counsel is the extra judicial confession purported to be made by the accused to Shri V.K. Mahajan PW 7, however said extra-judicial confession is not reliable, as Shri V.K. Mahajan is not the scribe, although it is purported to be made to him nor it bears any date of recording or the place where it was so made and is in Hindi and was recorded in Central Jail, Ferozepur. It is admitted that accused was Punjabi language knowing person and his confessional statement uses Hindi and English words and there are cuttings and overwriting without the initials of the scribe. It has not been explained why the confessional statement was not recorded in Punjabi language when an officer knowing Punjabi was available in Central Jail, Ferozepur. There is no reason to doubt the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding voluntary nature of the statement made by the accused in custody. Apart from the said fact, the Custom Authorities vide order Ex. DX have found the accused not guilty. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and on appreciation of evidence, there is no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.