Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2397 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh v. Paramjit Singh : State Of Punjab

2006-06-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Vide this judgment, I am disposing of the aforesaid two appeals as they are arising out of one and the same FIR No. 66 dated 18-9-1992 registered at Police Station Amargarh under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act). 2. It is worth mentioning here that appellant Paramjit Singh was declared as a proclaimed offender during the trial. He was subsequently apprehended. His case was segregated from his co- accused. He now stands convicted in a supplementary session case vide impugned judgment of learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, dated 16.4.2001, whereas aforesaid two appellants, namely, Karnail Singh and Labh Singh stand convicted vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 6.10.2000. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that one Piara Singh son of Jagat Singh (Conductor), resident of village Balno also stands convicted alongwith aforesaid Labh Singh and Karnail Singh @ Kaila. As per the information received from the concerned criminal branch, he has not preferred any appeal against his conviction till today. Mr. Hoshiarpuri has also confirmed this fact from the concerned quarters. He states at the Bar that after suffering conviction, aforesaid Piara Singh was sent to District Jail, Sangrur, from where he was transferred to Central Jail, Jalandhar on 10.10 2002. As per the latest information received, he is serving his substantive sentence in Central Jail, Jalandhar. 4. The sentence suffered by all the appellants is 10 years and a fine of Rs. one lakh each being the minimum sentence provided for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband. 5. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.9.92, SI. Mohan Singh (PW 1) alongwith other police officials including Head Constable Satnam Singh (PW2) were holding `Nakabandi as per directions of the DSP Malerkotla at T.Point, Bhatian, when one Gurbachan Singh came there. He was also associated with the police party. At about 12.40 A.M., a truck bearing registration No. PNP 2791 came from the side of Dhuri, which was signalled to stop with the help of Torch light. The truck driver stopped the truck. It was being driven by appellant Paramjit Singh, whereas Piara Singh was sitting along with him. Appellants Karnail Singh Labh Singh were sitting on the back side of the truck. The truck driver stopped the truck. It was being driven by appellant Paramjit Singh, whereas Piara Singh was sitting along with him. Appellants Karnail Singh Labh Singh were sitting on the back side of the truck. It is then the case of the prosecution that aforesaid S.I. Mohan Singh told all the persons that search of the truck was to be conducted and he asked for their consent with regard to the search of the truck in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. All consented for the search by him (SI. Mohan Singh). The consent memo Ex. P A was recorded in this regard which was thumbmarked by all the accused and attested by the aforesaid HC, Satnam Singh (PW2) and Gurbachan Singh, independent witness. Thereafter, search of the truck was conducted, which led to the recovery of 150 bags of poppy-husk. A message was sent to DSP Malerkotla for reaching the spot. Out of each bag, two samples of 250 grams each were separated and converted into two parcels. The remainder of poppy husk on weighment from each bag turned out to be 40 kg. All the sample parcels and the bags containing remaining poppy husk were then sealed by the seal of SI. Mohan Singh having inscription `MS. The sample seal chit was separately prepared and seal after its use was handed over to HC Satnam Singh. The entire case property including the truck was taken into possession vide separate memo Ex. PB attested by aforesaid prosecution witnesses. The permit and registration certificate of the truck were also taken into possession vide separate memo Ex. PE. DSP Sukhdev Singh Brar (PW3) also reached the spot and made certain inquiries from the appellants and thereafter, affixed his own seal bearing impression `SS on all the samples, the bags containing remaining "poppy husk as well as on sample seal chit." Thereafter, a ruqa Ex. PC was sent to the concerned Police Station on which formal FIR Ex. PC-I was recorded. Rough site plan Ex. PD of the place of recovery was also prepared at the spot. After completing other formalities, SI. Mohan Singh came to the Police Station along with the accused and the case property. The case property was deposited with MHC Tarlochan Singh (PW4). After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the challan was presented against the present appellants and their co-accused Piara Singh. After completing other formalities, SI. Mohan Singh came to the Police Station along with the accused and the case property. The case property was deposited with MHC Tarlochan Singh (PW4). After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the challan was presented against the present appellants and their co-accused Piara Singh. They were charged under Section 15 of the Act. 6. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined PW1 SI. Mohan Singh and PW2 HC Satnam Singh. The recovery was effected before these two witnesses. S.I. Mohan Singh is otherwise the Investigating Officer of this case. Besides this, the prosecution has examined DSP Sukhdev Singh Singh PW6, Baldev Kumar PW7 and HC Baljit Singh PW8. 7. As stated above, during the pendency of the trial, Paramjit Singh appellant had absented himself and was declared as a proclaimed offender, whereas after the closure of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was put to aforesaid appellants Labh Singh and Karnail Singh, who pleaded their false implication. In defence, they have examined Bachan Singh (DW1), HC Shamsher Singh (DW2) and Constable Raj Kumar (DW3). Besides this, documents Mark-A, Ex. DD and Ex. DE were tendered. 8. The stand taken by Paramjit appellant is that the police raided their house and a quarrel took place between them, and police for which reason he and his co-accused were implicated. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 9. After appreciating the entire evidence, the appellants now stand convicted and sentenced vide two separate Judgments, as indicated above. 10. I have heard Mr. T.S. Sangha learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 1087-SB of 2000 for appellants Karnail Singh and Labh Singh, Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 815-SB of 2001 for appellant Paramjit Singh and Mr. Hoshiarpuri, AAG, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the records of the case very carefully. 11. Mr. Sangha contends that the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court is that Karnail Singh and Labh Singh appellants were found sitting in the upper portion of the truck. According to learned counsel, upper portion is on the top of the cabinet of the truck. 11. Mr. Sangha contends that the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court is that Karnail Singh and Labh Singh appellants were found sitting in the upper portion of the truck. According to learned counsel, upper portion is on the top of the cabinet of the truck. It is a depressed place which can accommodate 2-3 persons and it is generally noticed that labourers who are engaged for the purposes of loading and unloading the goods sit in that cabin. Mr. Sangha then contends that the substantive evidence is also to the effect that the aforesaid two appellants were sitting on the roof of the truck and from these peculiar facts, it cannot be said that the aforesaid Labh Singh and Karnail Singh appellants were even remotely connected with the contraband much less being in conscious possession of the same, so as to maintain their conviction under Section 15 of the Act. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Sangha submits that both the appellants are from different villages. Karnail Singh is from village Bagrian, whereas Labh Singh is a resident of village Samundgarh Chhanna. They are not the employees of the truck owner Major Singh who got the truck released on sapurdari. They are not even related with the co-accused who were found sitting in the cabin. Piara Singh (non-appellant) is said to be a conductor of the truck. He is uncle of Major Singh, owner of the truck and even as per telegram sent by Major Singh, it is mentioned that his uncle Piara Singh and Paramjit Singh, his driver, were illegally detained by the police. From this, Mr. Sangha segregates the case of present two appellants stating that Paramjit Singh, driver of the truck or Piara Singh can at the most be said to be having the control and possession over the bags as one is driver employed by Major Singh, the owner and the other (Piara Singh) being his uncle, but by no stretch of imagination, the present two appellants can be shown to have any nexus with the case property. 12. Mr. Sangha while developing his aforesaid submissions still further, contends that possession and ownership need not go together but the minimum requisite element which has to be satisfied by the prosecution is the custody and control over the goods. In the instant case, the said element is missing qua the present appellants. 12. Mr. Sangha while developing his aforesaid submissions still further, contends that possession and ownership need not go together but the minimum requisite element which has to be satisfied by the prosecution is the custody and control over the goods. In the instant case, the said element is missing qua the present appellants. In support of his arguments, he relies upon a latest judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab 2006(1) RCR (Crl.) 4 and other single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(1) RCR (Crl) 823. 13. Mr. Sangha then relying upon a judgment of Full Bench of this Court rendered in Kashmir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Crl.) 478, contends that no presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act can be drawn against the aforesaid two appellants as no specific question with regard to conscious possession was put to them in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to call upon therp to explain the circumstances to rebut the same. While drawing the attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Mr. Sangha states that except the incriminating evidence to the effect that they were found sitting on the upper portion of the truck which was carrying the contraband, no other circumstance has been brought in their statements and therefore, no presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act can be drawn against them qua the conscious possession of the contraband. Therefore, on this score also, the case of the prosecution is on slippery footing and both the appellants deserve acquittal. 14. Mr. Sangha has also pointed out certain discrepancies with regard to the link evidence but mainly... he relies upon the aforesaid flaws. 15. Mr. Aggarwal appearing for Paramjit Singh appellant also takes the plea of conscious possession of the contraband contending that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that Paramjit Singh being the driver was in conscious possession of the contraband. He submits that Piara Singh (non-appellant) who was allegedly found sitting by his side could be having the possessory title and control over the entire contraband and this appears to be the reason that he has not preferred any appeal against his conviction. He submits that Piara Singh (non-appellant) who was allegedly found sitting by his side could be having the possessory title and control over the entire contraband and this appears to be the reason that he has not preferred any appeal against his conviction. Learned counsel then contends that there is every possibility that Paramjit Singh appellant might have been engaged as a driver for that day only and for this reason also, he cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the same. The counsel then contends that except the charge of Section 15 of the Act, no other alternative charge has been framed against him and his conviction for the main charge is not sustainable in the light of aforesaid facts. In order to strengthen his submissions, Mr. Aggarwal relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Crl) 407. 16. Mr. Aggarwal at the same time wants to take advantage of Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Kashmir Singh case (supra) on the point of presumption as envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. 17. Mr. Aggarwal then contends that despite the fact that Gurbax Singh, independent witness, was joined by SI. Mohan Singh, still the sample seal was given to HC. Satnam Singh, who remained throughout with the aforesaid Mohan Singh, and this is fatal to the prosecution as chances of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. He then contends that even otherwise, when the case property was produced before the trial Court, it was not having the proper seals, so much so the signatures of DSP Sukhdev Singh were not visible on the sample parcels. He then contends that one of the sample parcel (Ex. P 10) was in torn condition and the material was coming out of the same. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to how it was damaged. For this infirmity also, the appellant Paramjit Singh is entitled to acquittal. In support of his contentions, Mr. Aggarwal relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RCR (Crl) 351. 18. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Aggarwal prays for acquittal of the appellant Paramjit Singh. 19. While controverting the submissions advanced by Mr. Sangha and Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Aggarwal relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RCR (Crl) 351. 18. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Aggarwal prays for acquittal of the appellant Paramjit Singh. 19. While controverting the submissions advanced by Mr. Sangha and Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hoshiarpuri, learned State Counsel submits that huge recovery of contraband is effected in this case and therefore, possibility of false implication is ruled out. He then submits that it is clear from the records and even from the title of the judgment that Piara Singh (non-appellant) who also stands convicted alongwith present appellants was conductor. Major Singh, the owner of the truck who had sent the telegram is related to Piara Singh. Paramjit Singh appellant was the driver on his truck (PNP-2791). Therefore, nexus of Paramjit Singh and Piara Singh cannot be doubted in any manner. Mr. Hoshiarpuri otherwise very fairly states that the prosecution has shown some laxity while investigating the present case, as once it has come to its notice that the truck belonged to Major Singh, the investigation should have been carried out with regard to Section 25 of the Act also. According to learned State counsel, Paramjit Singh, appellant, was declared as a proclaimed offender during the trial and apprehended subsequently. This fact may also be considered against him. 20. So far as Karnail Singh @ Kaila and Labh Singh are concerned, Mr. Hoshiarpuri states that maybe they were sitting in the open cabin made on the roof of the truck, but it cannot be inferred that they had no knowledge that the bags being carried in the truck were containing the contraband item. Therefore, they too have no escape. 21. After hearing rival contentions of learned counsel for the either side and going through the record minutely, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt against Labh Singh and Karnail Singh appellants at least, whereas, the case of the prosecution is proved qua appellant Paramjit Singh. For arriving at the said conclusion, I shall now be entering into the detailed discussion on each and every aspect. 22. Admitted position is that Karnail Singh @ Kaila and Labh Singh appellants were found sitting on the top of the cabin of the truck. They are from different villages. For arriving at the said conclusion, I shall now be entering into the detailed discussion on each and every aspect. 22. Admitted position is that Karnail Singh @ Kaila and Labh Singh appellants were found sitting on the top of the cabin of the truck. They are from different villages. The persons noticed in the main cabin were Paramjit Singh appellant, the driver of the truck and Piara Singh (non-appellant). A perusal of the entire evidence on record reflects that SI. Mohan Singh did not make any effort to verify as to whether Karnail Singh and Labh Singh were in any manner connected with Paramjit Singh or Piara Singh. Admittedly, they are not the employees of Major Singh, the owner of the truck. This certainly creates doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the conscious possession of the contraband qua these two appellants. In my view, police should have conducted further investigation to prove that these two persons were really having the possessory title over the bags being carried in the truck. The same is not done in that direction. Maybe that these two appellants have failed to give any explanation for being present at the time of alleged recovery, the said fact by itself does not prove that they were in the possession of the bags: The Division Bench judgment relied upon by Mr. Sangha in case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) on conscious possession comes at the rescue of these two appellants. In the said case, the accused was even found sitting over the bags. The Honble Division Bench of this Court observed that conscious possession of the bags is not proved. On facts, the present case is on better footing. The possibility is that they might have been engaged as labourers for loading and unloading the goods. No doubt, if one reads their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the plea taken by them is that there was a scuffle between them on one hand and Piara Singh and Paramjit Singh on the other hand, for which they were taken from their houses and falsely implicated in this case. But the said plea would not stand in their way, once the case of the prosecution is found to be on slippery footing qua them. 23. Another judgment rendered in Baldev Singh s case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Sangha is also to the same effect. But the said plea would not stand in their way, once the case of the prosecution is found to be on slippery footing qua them. 23. Another judgment rendered in Baldev Singh s case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Sangha is also to the same effect. In the said case, while acquitting the accused, this Court relied upon a judgment of Honble the Apex Court rendered in Syed Mohd. Syed Umer Syed v. State of Gujarat, JT 1995(3) SC 489 wherein it was observed as under: "that unlawful possession of the contraband is the sine qua non for conviction under the Act and that fact has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Though possession has not been defined in the Act but has been judicially construed to be conscious and intelligent possession and not merely the physical presence of the accused in proximity or even in close proximity of the object. There are two essential elements of possession; firstly the corpus the element of physical control and secondly, the animus or intent with which such control is exercised. It is conscious and intelligent possession of any contraband which attracts penal provision of the Act and it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was found in conscious and intelligent possession of the contrabands." 24. I am appreciating the case of aforesaid two appellants yet from another angle. Admitted position is that they have been charged only for Section 1-5 of the Act for having been found in conscious possession of 150 bags of poppy-husk along with their co-accused. They have not been charged for any other offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 29 of the Act. Therefore, in my view it was the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to carry out the investigation in the right direction so as to bring it to its logical end at least with regard to the involvement of the present two appellants. Even the State counsel has fairly conceded at the Bar that the investigation is not conducted on the right track. Major Singh, who happens to be the registered owner of the truck and got the same released on sapurdari, was not even interrogated in this case with regard to involvement of his truck. Even the State counsel has fairly conceded at the Bar that the investigation is not conducted on the right track. Major Singh, who happens to be the registered owner of the truck and got the same released on sapurdari, was not even interrogated in this case with regard to involvement of his truck. He could be booked for Section 25 of the Act, in case the truck was used with his knowledge and connivance. Piara Singh (non- appellant) is his real uncle and was a Conductor. He had also sent the telegram against the police alleging false implication of his driver and uncle. In the light of such type of faulty investigation, in my view, it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of these two appellants at least. 25. In a recent judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(4) RCR (Crl.) 300, there was recovery of 20 gunny bags containing contraband from the tractor trolley. The accused was sitting in the trolley. He was not the owner of the tractor or trolley. No evidence was led by the prosecution that he was actually the owner of said poppy-husk. The Bench observed that it cannot be inferred that the accused was exercising the possessory right over the contraband and his conviction was set aside. In the case in hand also on facts, the situation is the same. 26. The view taken by Honble Full Bench of this Court in Kashmir Singh s case (supra) also comes at the rescue of present two appellants. I have gone through the statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the incriminating evidence has been put to them. If one reads their statements carefully, the present two appellants have not been called upon to explain the circumstances giving rise to the presumption except that in the first question put to them is that they were found sitting on the upper portion of the truck. This in my considered view does not amount to calling upon the accused to explain the circumstances which would give rise to the presumptions to be drawn against them under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. This in my considered view does not amount to calling upon the accused to explain the circumstances which would give rise to the presumptions to be drawn against them under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. In Kashmir Singh s case (supra), the question which was referred to the Full Bench for its decision was regarding correct meaning of `possession in the context of the Act and under what circumstances and in what manner presumption of culpable mental state is to be raised under Section 35 of the Act. Further more under what circumstances, the Court has to presume that the accused committed offence in respect of possession of any contraband which he fails to account for satisfactorily. The Honble Full Bench while concluding its judgment finally observed that the ultimate analysis would depend upon the facts of each case and therefore, no hard and fast rule can be laid down to define as to what is or what is not possession of a drug or narcotic substance. But the main question was answered observing that presumption under Sections 35 & 54 of the Act should be used against the accused, unless he has been given an opportunity to rebut the same in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by having been calling upon to explain the circumstances which give rise to the presumption. In the case in hand, under the present set of circumstances when the prosecution has failed to prove the element of custody or control over the contraband qua the present two appellants, the benefit has to be extended to them in the light of the view taken in Kashmir Singh s case (supra). 27. As a sequel to the aforesaid facts, the net result surfaces is that the prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession of the contraband (150 bags of poppy husk) qua appellants Karnail Singh @ Kaila and Labh Singh and therefore, their conviction as recorded by the trial for the charge of Section 15 of the Act deserves to be disturbed. Ordered accordingly. 28. Let us now advert to the facts of the case of Paramjit Singh appellant. 29. In my considered view, his case can very well be segregated on facts from the aforesaid two appellants. Ordered accordingly. 28. Let us now advert to the facts of the case of Paramjit Singh appellant. 29. In my considered view, his case can very well be segregated on facts from the aforesaid two appellants. He is the driver of the truck employed by Major Singh, as is clear from the telegram sent by Major Singh, the owner of the truck. May be the said telegram is technically not proved, but the recitals of the same go to show that Paramjit Singh is shown as his driver. In the said telegram, it is mentioned that Paramjit Singh and his uncle Piara Singh have been detained by the police along with the truck. As already observed that the investigation is not conducted in the right direction, otherwise, SI. Mohan Singh, the Investigating Officer could comfortably ascertain all the facts after joining the owner of the truck. I am certainly showing my anguish in this regard. Be that as it may, the fact remains that two persons who were sitting in the cabin, one on the steering and the other by the side of the driver, were certainly in the know of the fact as to what was being carried in the truck Piara Singh (non-appellant) is none else but the real uncle of the owner of the truck. He is shown to be the conductor as is clear from the title of the judgment itself. In these peculiar circumstances, it cannot be said that Paramjit Singh was not aware as to who was sitting by his side. Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution is successful in proving the custody and control over the goods qua Paramjit Singh appellant and Piara Singh (non-appellant). Consequently the presumption of conscious possession of the contraband as envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act can also be drawn against Paramjit Singh appellant despite the fact that a specific question has not been put to him in this regard while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances giving rise to such presumption. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that in Kashmir Singh s case (supra), the Honble Full Bench has observed that with regard to the presumption, the ultimate analysis would depend upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that in Kashmir Singh s case (supra), the Honble Full Bench has observed that with regard to the presumption, the ultimate analysis would depend upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Therefore, Kashmir Singhs case (Supra) will not come to the rescue of Paramjit Singh appellant as it leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution has enabled to prove the conscious possession of the contraband qua Paramjit Singh appellant. 30. With regard to the case of Piara Singh (non-appellant) in my view, he is not on better footing. But I refrain myself from commenting upon his case in detail, as he is not before me as an appellant. At the same time, I am well aware of the settled legal position that in case of disbelieving the prosecution case in its entirety, the convict, who is not before the appellate Court, can also be benefited despite there being no appeal filed on his behalf against the conviction suffered by him. That is certainly not the situation in the case in hand. 31. Even the other infirmities projected by Mr. Aggarwal with regard to not handing over of sample seals to an independent witness or no I explanation from the side of prosecution with regard to one of the parcels (Ex. P10) found in damaged condition and with regard to non-availability of signatures of DSP Sukhdev Singh, in my view, are not material which would dislodge the case of prosecution in its entirety. The case of prosecution is that DSP Sukhdev Singh had reached the spot after samples were already drawn from all the bags and sealed with the seal bearing impression `MS (Mohan Singh). DSP Sukhdev Singh had affixed his own seal thereafter. Only one parcel is in torn condition. The recovery was allegedly effected in September, 1992. The case property was produced in Court in September, 1995. If, one of the packets containing sample was found damaged, it cannot be said that any tampering has been done with the entire stock. It could be on account of mishandling in the Malkhana. It is generally noticed that in the Malkhana, many items are dumped in a casual manner. Some penetrating element might have damaged one of the parcels during three years. It could be on account of mishandling in the Malkhana. It is generally noticed that in the Malkhana, many items are dumped in a casual manner. Some penetrating element might have damaged one of the parcels during three years. In my view, it cannot be taken as a serious defect in the case of prosecution. Had the Investigating Officer in his wisdom obtained the requisite orders from the concerned Court under Section 52-A of the Act, in that eventuality, this situation would not have even arisen. The judgment cited by Mr. Aggarwal in Surjit Singh s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not lend any support to him. 32. No other point is left for discussion. 33. In view of discussion, referred to above, the conclusion is that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against Paramjit Singh appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt as his conscious possession qua the contraband is established to the hilt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court for the charge of Section 15 of the Act qua him deserves to be upheld. It is so ordered. 34. The net result is that appeal No. 1087-SB of 2000 is hereby allowed and appellants Karnail Singh @ Kaila and Labh Singh are acquitted of the charge framed against them. Since they are stated to be on bail during the pendency of the instant appeal, they are hereby discharged of their bail bonds, whereas appeal No. 815-SB of 2001 filed by Paramjit Singh is hereby dismissed having no merit in it.