Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 595 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-03-26

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2009
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 722-SB of 2003 has been preferred by Ranjit Singh son of Jangir Singh, resident of Mohalla Guru Nanak Nagar, Barnala. He has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judge, Special Court, Barnala, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 2. Formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded on basis of ruqa sent by Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, CIA Staff Barnala. He states that he along with his companion police officials was present at Handiya crossing in connection with search of suspected persons when an information was received by him that Ranjit Singh alias Pappu son of Jangir Singh Bazigar, is indulging in business of selling poppy husk and if raid is conducted at his newly built house then enough quantity of poppy husk can be recovered from his possession. The information was reduced in writing in the shape of ruqa and was sent" to the Police Station Barnala for registration of case. This ruqa was sent on 20.4.2001 at 10.15 A.M. Thereafter, Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, along with his companion police officials proceeded to the spot. 3. Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, reached at the house of the appellant. He prepared a consent memo whereby the appellant was informed that they received a secret information that he was having poppy husk in his house and search of his house is to be conducted and in case appellant desire. Gazetted Officer or Magistrate can be called at the spot. Ranjit Singh gave his consent and reposed faith in the Investigating Officer. The consent memo has been exhibited as Ex.PB. It has been witnessed by Kanwaldeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala, Head Constable Darshan Singh and Bhola Singh. Thereafter, search of the house was conducted. A recovery memo Ex.PC was prepared and eight bags of poppy husk were recovered. Each bag weighed 41 Kgs, therefore, in all 328 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the house of the appellant. A rough site plan was also prepared which is exhibited as Ex.PE. Appellant was arrested on 20.4.2001. Thereafter, search of the house was conducted. A recovery memo Ex.PC was prepared and eight bags of poppy husk were recovered. Each bag weighed 41 Kgs, therefore, in all 328 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the house of the appellant. A rough site plan was also prepared which is exhibited as Ex.PE. Appellant was arrested on 20.4.2001. The case property was produced in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate along with samples on 21.4.2001. Application submitted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is exhibited as Ex.PH. The samples were sent to the laboratory. As per the report of Chemical Laboratory Ex.PK it was opined that the contraband recovered was poppy husk. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 4. The appellant was charged for the offence. 5. Prosecution examined Ajaib Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, as PW.l. He stated that Surinder Pal Singh, Inspector/Station House Officer, Kotwali, Barnala, had deposited with him eight sealed bags each containing 39 Kgs. 500 grams of poppy husk. On 21.4.2001 the entire case property was handed over to Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, for its production before the Magistrate. In cross-examination, it was stated that case property was deposited on 20.4.2001 at about. 4.20 P.M. An entry to this regard was made in Register No. 19. Though he stated that the samples and case property bear the seal of Magistrate, later on a question put by the Court he clarified that he had inadvertently stated so. 6. Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.2. He deposed regarding receipt of information, preparation of ruqa, proceeding to the spot, preparation of consent memo and recovery of eight bags of poppy husk. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had not made any attempt to obtain search warrants from the Court at Barnala. He further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was coming from the side of police office towards the Courts, therefore, he met him. He had made no attempt to inform the Deputy Superintendent of Police on wireless. On a question put to him, he admitted that he is not aware of CFSL Form and he had not filled any CFSL form. In cross-examination he further stated that house of accused is situated in the thickly populated locality. He further admitted that report under Section 57 of the Act was prepared at the spot. 7. On a question put to him, he admitted that he is not aware of CFSL Form and he had not filled any CFSL form. In cross-examination he further stated that house of accused is situated in the thickly populated locality. He further admitted that report under Section 57 of the Act was prepared at the spot. 7. Jagtar Singh, Constable, appeared as PW.3. He had sworn his affidavit Ex.PJ. He was the witness to prove link evidence. 8. Surinder Pal Singh, Inspector, appeared as PW.4. He stated that on 20.4.2001, Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had produced the case property. He further stated that he applied his seal on the articles which were produced before him. In cross-examination, he admitted that no independent witness was produced before him and he had not broken the seals to check the contents. 9. Kanwaldeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, appeared as PW.5. He also stated regarding search and seizor. 10. Thereafter, prosecution had closed its evidence. 11. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He had denied incriminating circumstances put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated. 12. In defence, Nirmal Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, was examined as DW.l. RegisterlMo. 19 was called, photocopy of which were exhibited as Ex.Dl and Ex.D2. 13. Thereafter, defence evidence was also closed. 14. Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has stated that Nahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had received the secret information. He had not reduced it into writing and he had only sent a ruqa to the Police Station. 15. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Bhola Singh was joined as independent witness. He has not been examined. He has been given up as won over and impression of seal was not handed over to Bhola Singh. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in pursuance of provision of Section 100 Cr.P.C. search was conducted and two independent witnesses were not joined. Counsel for the appellant has stated that consent memo contained the number of FIR. Nowhere it has been explained by the Investigating Officer as to how he received the number of FIR. 16. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, learned Deputy Advocate, General, Punjab, has stated that the appellant is a habitual offender. Counsel for the appellant has stated that consent memo contained the number of FIR. Nowhere it has been explained by the Investigating Officer as to how he received the number of FIR. 16. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, learned Deputy Advocate, General, Punjab, has stated that the appellant is a habitual offender. He has been also convicted in case FIR No. 346 dated 27.9.2000 registered at Police Station Patran under Section 18 of the Act. He further stated that the appellant has also been convicted in case FIR No. 3 dated 6.1.2000 registered at Police Station Sherpur under section 15 of the Act. 17. The recovery was effected during the day time. Bhola Singh had witnessed the consent memo along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the search was conducted in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Bhola Singh. The appellant had also not examined anybody from the locality to state that raid was not conducted. Furthermore, once the consent memo was prepared, Bhola Singh had signed it, the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. have been complied with. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has been falsely implicated. Non handing over of the seal to the independent witness in the present case do not assume much importance as no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The Investigating Officer was not cross-examined as to how he received the case FIR number. 18. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.