Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 82 (PNJ)

Teja Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-01-18

NIRMAL YADAV

body2005
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.10.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide which the accused has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short `the Act) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 7.7.1988 ASI-Bakshish Singh of Police Station Tapa received a secret information that accused-Teja Singh of village Pakho Kalan was in possession of a huge quantity of poppy husk. On the basis of that information he recorded FIR, Exhibit PG in the police station and constituted a raiding party consisting of HC-Kishan Singh and other police officials. On his way to village Pakho Kalan, he joined one Babu Singh, PW resident of village Pakho Kalan, who met him on the road. The raiding party along with said Babu Singh went to the house of the accused and found him present there. On interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement, Exhibit PE, stating that he had kept concealed 20 bags containing poppy husk in Turi Wala Kotha of his house under Turi and offered to get the same recovered. On the basis of the disclosure statement, the raiding party got recovered 20 bags, Exhibit P1 to P20 containing 40 kags. poppy husk each from the disclosed place. Samples of 250 grams of poppy husk were taken out of each bag and were sealed with the seal BS. The bags containing the remaining poppy husk were also separately sealed with the same seal. These articles were taken into possession vide Memo-Exhibit PF. The accused was arrested and samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner who submitted reports Exhibit PD and Exhibit PD/1 to the effect that sample contained poppy heads as they were containing meconic acid and morphine. On completion of investigation of the case, the accused was challaned under Section 15 of the Act and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala framed charges under Section 15 of the Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. On completion of investigation of the case, the accused was challaned under Section 15 of the Act and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala framed charges under Section 15 of the Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced PW-4 ASI Bakhshish Singh, the recovery witness who proved the site plan, Exhibit PH, of the place of recovery and deposed that he had deposited the case property with seals intact with the MHC on the same day. HC-Kishan Singh appeared as PW-3 and corroborated the version of ASI-Bakhshish Singh, PW-4 about the recovery. HC- Sukhdev Singh and HC-Darshan Singh while appearing as PW-1 and PW-2 proved their affidavits Exhibits PA and PB, respectively. Affidavit PC of Bhupinder Singh, Constable was also relied upon as link evidence that there was no tampering with the sample till they were deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner. 5. The accused in his version under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution. According to him, he was residing in his farm house situated on the boundary of village Bhaini Fatta at a distance of 4 KMs. from village Pakho Kalan. He was not a resident of village Pakho Kalan. He was arrested from his farm house in the presence of Ranjit Singh and Gurdeep Singh although nothing incriminating was recovered from him. He was falsely implicated. In defence, he produced Ranjit Singh, DW-2. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment and order of the trial Court mainly on the ground that mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act have not been complied with. He further argued that the case had been registered on a secret information and, therefore, it was mandatory on the part of the Investigating Office to send a copy thereof to an officer immediately superior to him. In support, he refers to a judgment of this Court in Fateh Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 1. 7. He further argued that the case had been registered on a secret information and, therefore, it was mandatory on the part of the Investigating Office to send a copy thereof to an officer immediately superior to him. In support, he refers to a judgment of this Court in Fateh Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 1. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the officer who conducted the search, arrest and seizure was an empowered officer of the department and, therefore, provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. To support his contention, he refers to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in M. Prabulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 160 (SC) : 2003(8) Supreme Court Cases 449 and in the case of Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, 2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 808 (SC) : 2001(6) Supreme Court Cases 692. 8. In the present case, the Investigating Officer-Bakhshish Singh, after receiving the secret information, recorded the same as Exhibit PG in the police station. He immediately constituted a raiding party and proceeded to conduct the raid. The law under the Act being stringent to the persons involved in the field of illicit drug trafficking and drug abuse, the legislature has, of course, made some of its provisions obligatory for the prosecution to comply with. Compliance of such provisions has been interpreted to be mandatory in order to balance the stringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the prosecution for its strict compliance. However, the Courts while construing such provisions should not interpret them so literally so as to render their compliance impossible. The Investigating Officer after receipt of information, had immediately proceeded to the place disclosed in the secret information. The communication thereof could not have been possible as he was on motion for apprehending the accused. In Sajan Abrahams and M. Prabulals cases (supra), the Honble Apex Court has also observed that in case where an empowered gazetted officer conducts the search, arrest and seizure, the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act are not applicable. 9. The communication thereof could not have been possible as he was on motion for apprehending the accused. In Sajan Abrahams and M. Prabulals cases (supra), the Honble Apex Court has also observed that in case where an empowered gazetted officer conducts the search, arrest and seizure, the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act are not applicable. 9. The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that Babu Singh, independent witness, who was joined in the investigation, has not been produced and as such, the case of the prosecution is supported by the police officials only and, therefore, the recovery becomes doubtful. 10. It is true that the evidence of police witnesses needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny. However, their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the case of investigating or prosecution agency. It is, however, well established that the testimony of the official witnesses should not be discarded merely because they are police officials or interested witnesses. A perusal of the record nowhere reveals that the witnesses were biased against the accused person. ASI-Bakhshish and HC-Kishan Singh had no malice against the accused person to falsely implicate him. No discrepancy worth mentioning appears in their statements. Moreover, it is a case of heavy recovery of 80 quintals of poppy husk and there was no reason for the policemen to plant such a huge quantity of contraband against him. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that non-production of Babu Singh, witness and his having been won over, also does not create any doubt about the truthfulness of the police officials in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, it does not appear to be a case of false implication. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is ordered to be maintained. Dismissed.