Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 671 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Kashmir Singh

2002-07-16

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The present is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the acquittal dated 8.6.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot in a case FIR No. 108 of 25.12.1990 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot. 2. Briefly, the facts are that on 25.12.1990. Ashok Kumar Inspector along with SI Kashmir Singh, SI Harcharan Singh and other police officials was going from the side of village Dhimanwali towards village Ratti Rori. When the police party reached at a distance of 1.5 Kilometres ahead of village Dhimanwali near Rajasthan canal bridge, the accused was seen coming from the opposite side. On seeing the police party the accused slipped towards his left side. On suspicion the accused was apprehended. After ascertaining the name and address, he was told that he could be taken before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer for his search but the accused showed confidence in the police officials. Personal search of the accused was taken by Ashok Kumar Inspector and Opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from this right hand side. After making arrangement for the weights and scales it was weighed and it was found to be 800 grams. 10 grams opium was taken as sample and the remaining was put into a tin box. Separate parcels of the sample and remaining bulk were prepared and a writing was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded. Subsequently, the sample was sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis who declared the same as that of opium. On completion of investigation, the accused was sent for trial. 3. The trial Court after considering evidence on record found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him. 4. We have heard Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate Central Punjab for the appellant State of Punjab and on perusal of the record we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. 5. During trial, the prosecution primarily relied upon two witnesses - P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar Inspector and P.W. 4 Kashmir Singh. We have heard Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate Central Punjab for the appellant State of Punjab and on perusal of the record we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. 5. During trial, the prosecution primarily relied upon two witnesses - P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar Inspector and P.W. 4 Kashmir Singh. It has been stated by PW 3 Ashok Kumar that the place of recovery is at 1.5 kilometres from village Dhimanwali and that he had tried to join some persons in the investigation who were passing from that side but they had refused to join. No attempt was made to join independent witnesses from the nearby villages although the police remained at the place of recovery for about 3 hours. It is further stated that the police was having weights and scales at the time of the recovery. On the other hand, P.W. 4 Kashmir Singh also deposed that no person was sent to call witnesses from the village Dhimanwali or Ratti Rori and that the place of recovery is a thoroughfare and the people continued to pass. None of them was asked to join in the investigation. 6. A perusal of the statements of P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar, Inspector and that of P.W. 4 Kashmir Singh would show that the place of recovery is 1.5 kilometres from the village and is a thoroughfare and people continued to pass. The police had ample opportunity to associate independent witnesses but still it had failed to join any independent person. Even the statements of PW 3 Ashok Kumar, Inspector and P.W. 4 Kashmir Singh are discrepant in as much as P.W. 3 has stated that the persons from the public refused to join while P.W. 4 has stated that they had not asked any body to join. The Act provides stringent measure for control and regulation of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. As stringent punishment are contemplated, therefore, the provisions of the Act are required to be complied with strictly. In the present case the police had ample opportunity to associate independent witnesses but it had failed to do so. 7. We do not find any reason to take a different view that the one taken by the trial Court. As stringent punishment are contemplated, therefore, the provisions of the Act are required to be complied with strictly. In the present case the police had ample opportunity to associate independent witnesses but it had failed to do so. 7. We do not find any reason to take a different view that the one taken by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are possible findings and do not suffer from any perversity and absurdity and, therefore, we affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the present appeal and dismiss the same.