Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1019 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Baljinder Singh

2007-04-30

A.N.JINDAL, UMA NATH SINGH

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Baljinder Singh-accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was challaned under Sections 17 and 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for keeping in his possession 3 kg. 900 gms of opium, but vide judgment dated 24.11.1997, he was extended benefit of doubt and was acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 21.2.1994, when Om Parkash Inspector, CIA Staff, Sirsa along with other police officials was present at bus stand of village Sahuwala, he received a secret information against the respondent that he is in the habit of selling opium at his farm house. At this, Om Parkash organised a raiding party and when they were on their way to farm house of the respondent, the respondent was seen coming. He was stopped and after completing formalities, he was taken into custody. On search of the accused 3 kg. 900 gms opium was recovered from a packet carried by him in his hand, out of which a sample of 20 gms was taken out and after putting the same in an iron tin, was converted into a parcel. The remaining opium was also converted into a parcel. Thereafter, a ruqa Ex. PJ was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which Sub-Inspector Lachhman Singh recorded First Information Report Ex. PJ-1. He also prepared report under Section 57 of the Act and put it before the Deputy Superintendent of Police at the spot. 3. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented. Consequently, he was charged under Section 18 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all; Moti Lal Deputy Superintendent of Police PW-1, Constable Raj Kumar PW-2, who gave the evidence on affidavit Ex. PC, Gurmail Singh PW-3 alleged eye-witness did not support the prosecution case. Head Constable Krishan Lal PW-4 also made a statement by way of affidavit Ex. PE while Darshan Singh Inspector is the witness to the recovery and Om Parkash Inspector/Investigating Officer PW-6 proved the investigation conducted by him. 5. During his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. PE while Darshan Singh Inspector is the witness to the recovery and Om Parkash Inspector/Investigating Officer PW-6 proved the investigation conducted by him. 5. During his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal. Hence, this appeal. 6. There is no denying a fact that raid was conducted on the respondent on the basis of a secret information. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to reduce the said secret information into writing and send the same to the higher authorities, but it was not so done. It is settled by now that when a case is registered against a person in pursuance of some secret information, then it is mandatory for the Investigating Officer to reduce the same into writing and send the same to the Police Station for registration of a case. To strengthen this, reference can be made to the decisions in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR(Crl.) 251 (P&H) and Lamin Bojang v. State of Maharashtra, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 294 (Bombay). 7. That apart, there are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which establish that the recovery was not effected in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. As per Moti Lal Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-1), the sample was taken in a tin box. A similar version was given by Darshan Singh Inspector (PW-5) and Om Parkash Inspector (PW-6), but the report Ex. PD of Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana contradicts the aforesaid version by disclosing that the sample was received in the Laboratory in a plastic container. Furthermore, all the three witnesses testified that the sample was weighing 27 gms, which leads me to hold that either the witnesses were not present at the time the sample was separated or the sample sent to the Laboratory, was not the same which was separated out of the bulk opium. Tampering of the sample parcel in this case also cannot be ruled out, because as per the prosecution version the sample seal bearing impression `OP was handed over to Darshan Singh (PW-5) after its use. Tampering of the sample parcel in this case also cannot be ruled out, because as per the prosecution version the sample seal bearing impression `OP was handed over to Darshan Singh (PW-5) after its use. A similar version has been set up by the witnesses Moti Lal (PW-1) and Om Parkash (PW-6), but Darshan Singh (PW-5) is silent about handing over the sample seal to him after use. It may further be observed that according to Darshan Singh, the weights, with which the opium was measured, were of 2 kg, 1 kg and 500 mg (gm ?) and, thus the total weights were of 3.5 kg. whereas, as per the prosecution after separating the sample, the residue was 3 kg 880 grams. It is not understandable as to how the aforesaid bulk opium could be weighted with the aforesaid weights in one go as deposed by Om Parkash Inspector (PW-6) that the bulk opium was weighed at one time. Link evidence is also missing, in this case. Having scanned the judgment and the record, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No perversity, much less any illegality, suggesting interference has been found in the impugned judgment. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.