Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1471 (PNJ)

Inder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-08-09

MEHTAB S.GILL, S.D.ANAND

body2007
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 653-DB of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 403-DB of 2002 by a common order/judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 24.9.2001 of the learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. The learned trial Court convicted Inder Singh son of Kartar singh, Harpreet Singh son of Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar Bera son of Ramesh Chander under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced them to undergo 12 years R.I. Fine of Rs. one lac was also imposed, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. 3. A complaint Ex.PEE was filed before the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib by the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter called as DRI), M-1/C, Green Avenue, Amritsar against Inder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Pardeep Kumar Bera under Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 4. Inderjit Singh Aneja, Intelligence Officer stated in his complaint, that he received specific information, which was reduced into writing, copies of which were sent to his superior officers. The information was that Inder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Pardeep Kumar were transporting heroin to Delhi from Amritsar in Maruti car No. DL-5CA-3417. The car was intercepted near Bhakra Canal Bridge Octroi Post, Mandi Gobindgarh at 12.00 noon on 13.6.2000. All legal formalities to search the car were completed. Two independent witnesses Harbhajan Singh and Kirpal Singh were joined. Search of the car was made in their presence. Under the speaker box, 10 plythene packets bearing marking `Sajjad, Sheesha Three Star (written in Urdu) were recovered. Marking of the packets was made, which are to Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The heroin weighed 10.330 Kg. Net weight being 9.830 Kg. The 10 packets were divided into two lots. 5 gms sample was taken from each packet after making a homogeneous mixture. 10 packets of heroin were sealed and put into a steel trunk. The steel trunk was locked and wrapped with white cloth and sealed with the seal of DRI, with a paper slip, bearing signatures of the complainant, appellants and the two independent witnesses. Samples were put in a Khaki envelope and sealed with seal of DRI with paper slips. They were attested by the complainant, appellants and the witnesses. The steel trunk was locked and wrapped with white cloth and sealed with the seal of DRI, with a paper slip, bearing signatures of the complainant, appellants and the two independent witnesses. Samples were put in a Khaki envelope and sealed with seal of DRI with paper slips. They were attested by the complainant, appellants and the witnesses. Panchnama dated 13.6.2000 was prepared, which was signed by witnesses. Voluntary statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act dated 13.6.2000 were recorded, without any threat, inducement or pressure. Appellants were arrested on 14.6.2000, as they had committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Accused along with the case property, samples and other relevant documents i.e. panchnama etc. were produced before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh (Fatehgarh Sahib). Vide covering letter dated 15.6.2000, the samples in original were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi through Shri T.P.S. Sandhu, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Amritsar. The report of Chemical Examiner, Central Laboratory, New Delhi dated 26.6.2000 was received on 29.6.2000 by registered post. 5. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Lal Singh Maroria PW1, Diwakar Joshi PW2, Charanjit Singh Superintendent PW3, Inderjit Singh Intelligence Officer PW4, T.P.S. Sandhu, Intelligence Officer PW5 and S.R. Bangar Inspector PW6. 6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was the statement given by appellants Inder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Pardeep Kumar under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The consent memo Ex.PE was a joint consent memo and thus it cannot be taken into consideration. The two independent witnesses Harbhajan Singh and Kirpal Singh though were joined/associated by the raiding party, but they were not produced in Court. The contraband was recovered from the speaker box, fitted in the car. Car No. DL-5CA-3417 was in the name of appellant Inder Singh and appellants Harpreet Singh and Pardeep Kumar cannot be held liable for possession of the contraband consciously. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act should not be taken into consideration, as they were taken under threat and coercion, when the appellants were in the custody of the DRI officials. These statements are hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act should not be taken into consideration, as they were taken under threat and coercion, when the appellants were in the custody of the DRI officials. These statements are hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. Learned counsel has further argued, that going through the statement of Harpreet Singh, nowhere he has said, that he knew that the contraband was lying in the speaker box. Appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar do not implicate him to this extent by saying that Harpreet Singh knew about the contraband. Appellant Harpreet Singh was the driver. He (Harpreet Singh) has stated, that it was his father Inder Singh, who disclosed the narcotics to the Intelligence Officer. He has further stated, that he did not know from where the narcotics had come, nor did he know as to where the same were to be taken. In fact statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, if taken in totality, shows that appellant Harpreet Singh did know anything. The prosecution though has relied upon his statement, but he still could not be convicted. Appellant Harpreet Singh has also stated, that he earns Rs. 5,000/- per month and is doing the business of electronics. There is no conscious possession of the contraband by appellant Harpreet Singh. He did not know about the vehicle, nor did he have any control over the vehicle, as the owner of the vehicle was his father, who did not tell him anything about the contraband. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant (DRI) has argued, that even if we take the consent memo Ex.PE to be defective, it does not have material bearing on the case, as recovery of the contraband was made from Maruti Car No. DL-5CA- 3417. Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not apply in this case, as there was no personal search to be made of the appellants regarding contraband being in their possession. Harbhajan Singh and Kirpal Singh could not be brought into the witness box, as they were won over by the accused. The evidence of the official witnesses coupled with the statements of the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, has proved the case of the prosecution. Nowhere the appellants have stated, that their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were taken under threat and coercion. The evidence of the official witnesses coupled with the statements of the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, has proved the case of the prosecution. Nowhere the appellants have stated, that their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were taken under threat and coercion. Their statements are not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the Revenue Intelligence Officers are not police officers as envisaged under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 10. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants was the statements given by the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Statement of appellant Inder Singh PK/1 is to the effect that, appellant Inder Singh, along with appellant Harpreet Singh his son and appellant Pardeep Kumar his servant, were going to Delhi from Amritsar in white Maruti Car No. DL-5CA-3417. They were stopped at the Bhakra Canal Minor near the octroi post of Mandi Gobindgarh town at about 12.00 noon, where the car was searched. The registration certificate of the car was taken into possession, which was in the name of appellant Inder Singh and from under the speaker box, 10 packets of heroin were recovered. He has stated, that he is doing the business of selling heroin, for the last 4/5 months, along with his servant. They procured the contraband from Amritsar from one Titu. 11. Statement of appellant Pardeep Kumar Ex.PM/1 also is on similar lines. Appellant Pardeep Kumar has stated, that on 12.6.2000 he along with Inder Singh and Harpreet Singh left for Amritsar from Delhi in a white Maruti Car No. DL-5CA-3417, owned by appellant Inder Singh. They stayed for the night at some place. On 13.6.2000 in the morning, they left for Delhi at about 8.00/8.30 a.m. Before sitting in the car, he saw that the screws of the speaker box were loose and about 9/10 packets of heroin were lying inside the speaker. It was within his knowledge that indulging in the trade of heroin was illegal. On being stopped by DRA officials, Inder Singh disclosed, that 10 packets of heroin were lying in the car. Appellant Pardeep Kumar has also not stated, that Harpreet Singh knew about the narcotics. 12. It was within his knowledge that indulging in the trade of heroin was illegal. On being stopped by DRA officials, Inder Singh disclosed, that 10 packets of heroin were lying in the car. Appellant Pardeep Kumar has also not stated, that Harpreet Singh knew about the narcotics. 12. Appellant Harpreet Singh in his statement Ex.PL/1 has categorically stated, that on 12.6.2000, he along with his father Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar left from Delhi to Amritsar. His father met some persons at Bus Adda Saram Cinema. Thereafter, they stayed for the night in their uncles house in Partap Nagar. On the next day, he along with Pardeep Kumar and his father left for Delhi. Appellant Harpreet Singh has further stated, that he saw screws of speaker box were open and 9/10 packets of heroin were recovered by the DRA officials. He did not know from where the packets had come and to where they were to be taken. This was in the knowledge of his father and he did not have any information about it. He for the first time had gone along with his father on his asking. He (Harpreet Singh) was doing the business of electronics and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He is an Income Tax payee. 13. From the statements of appellants Inder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Pardeep Kumar Ex.PK/1, Ex.PM/1 and Ex.PL/1 respectively under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it is clear that appellant Harpreet Singh did not have any knowledge, nor did he know that the heroin was lying in the speaker box of the car. The statements of both appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar also point out, that appellant Harpreet Singh did not have knowledge of the contraband, nor did he know as to from where it had come and where it is to be taken. Though he saw the screws of the speaker were loose, but he did not know about the heroin lying in the speaker. Merely because the screws were loose, it cannot be inferred that he (Harpreet Singh) knew that heroin was lying under the speaker. 14. Statements of Lal Singh Maroria PW1, Charanjit singh PW3, Inderjit Singh PW4 and T.P.S. Sandhu PW5 inspire confidence qua appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar. They corroborate each other. Taking their statements into consideration, the case of the prosecution is proved against appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar. 15. 14. Statements of Lal Singh Maroria PW1, Charanjit singh PW3, Inderjit Singh PW4 and T.P.S. Sandhu PW5 inspire confidence qua appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar. They corroborate each other. Taking their statements into consideration, the case of the prosecution is proved against appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar. 15. Case against appellant Harpreet Singh is very weak. Charge framed against him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act does not hold. He is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted. Criminal Appeal No. 403-DB of 2002 qua appellant Harpreet Singh is allowed. His conviction and sentence is set aside. 16. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court qua appellants Inder Singh and Pardeep Kumar Bera. Their conviction stands intact. Their sentence is modified/reduced to ten years R.I. and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. With the above modification in sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 653-DB of 2001 filed by appellant Inder Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 403-DB of 2002 qua appellant Pardeep Kumar Bera are dismissed.