Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1133 (PNJ)

Pritpal Singh @ Pappa v. State of Punjab

2010-03-09

SABINA

body2010
JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- The appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act- for short) vide judgment dated 24.7.2003 by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. Vide order of the even date the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 2.8.2000 a police party headed by Inspector Jatinder Singh in connection with special Nakabandi was present in Kohara Chowk when he received a secret information that accused Pritpal Singh and his brother Avtar Singh and his brother-in-law Nirmal Singh are doing business of selling poppy husk and today they are moving in truck No.UP-12-8225 which is loaded with huge quantity of poppy husk in villages Dhansu, Budhewal etc. from selling the same and if nakabandi and checking is done in Jandali Chowk, then above said truck could be apprehended and huge quantity of poppy husk can be recovered. On the basis of this secret information Inspector Jatinder Singh Khaira sent a ruqa Ex.PA to the police station through C-I Baljinder Singh and on the basis of it a formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded at police station Sahnewal by ASI Narinder Kumar. Thereafter, Inspector Jatinder Singh Khaira along with other police officials held nakabandi at T.point, Budhewal where Jasbir Kumar Pathak a private witness was also associated with the party. At about 5.00 p.m. above said truck was sighted naka, it stopped about 200/300 meters away from the police party. Accused Prithpal Singh who was driving the Truck ran and Nirmal Singh jumped down from the truck and also ran away. ASI Dalbir Singh already knew the accused and identified them. On checking the truck was found to contain 11 gunny bags lying under Tarpuline. He also sent message to DSP Harmohan Singh and he reached on the spot after sometime. 3. In the presence of DSP Harmohan Singh the gunny bags were unloaded from the truck and were found to contain poppy husk, out of each gunny bag two samples of 250 grams each were separated and converted into separate parcels. He also sent message to DSP Harmohan Singh and he reached on the spot after sometime. 3. In the presence of DSP Harmohan Singh the gunny bags were unloaded from the truck and were found to contain poppy husk, out of each gunny bag two samples of 250 grams each were separated and converted into separate parcels. On weighment the remaining poppy husk from each gunny bag came to 34.1/2 kgs. The bags containing poppy husk were also converted into separated parcels. All the sample parcels and gunny bags containing remaining poppy husk we sealed by Inspector Jatinder Singh Khaira with his seal bearing impression JS and further with the seal of DSP Harmohan Singh bearing impression HS. Sample seal chit Ex.P-1 was separately prepared. The entire case property including the truck was taken into possession by the investigating officer vide recovery memo Ex.PB attested by DSP Harmohan Singh, ASI Dalbir Singh and Jasbir Kumar Pathak a private witness. On search of the truck its RC was also recovered which was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan of place of recovery Ex.PD with correct marginal notes. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On return to the police station, the Investigating Officer produced the case property before ASI Narinder Kumar officiating SHO, who checked the case property and further sealed with the seal bearing impression NK. He also put his seal on sample seal chit Ex.P1. Accused Prithpal Singh and Avtar Singh were arrested on 6.8.2000. After receipt of report of forensic science laboratory, Ex.PG and on completion of formal investigation, challan against the present accused was presented in Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was not put to the appellants when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to whether they were in conscious possession of the contraband. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that appellant Pritpal Singh was owner and driver of the truck in question and appellant Avtar Singh was his real brother. In these circumstances, it was evident that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. In these circumstances, it was evident that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the present case, on the basis of a secret information received by PW-1 Jatinder Singh Khaira, Station House Officer that the appellants and their co-accused Nirmal Singh were carrying poppy husk, a naka was held. After receipt of information ruqa was also sent to the police station for registration of FIR. At about 5.00 p.m., truck No.UP-12-8225 came from Budhewal side and it stopped about 200/300 meters ahead of the police party. Appellant Pritpal Singh was driving the truck. He ran away from the spot after leaving the truck. Appellant Avtar Singh and Co-accused Nirmal Singh jumped from behind the truck and fled away. Thereafter, the truck was searched in the presence of Harmohan Singh, Area Deputy Superintendent of Police and eleven bags of poppy husk were recovered. Out of each bag two samples weighing 250 gms. each were separated and the remaining poppy husk in each packet weighed 34 kgs. 500 gms. The samples as well as case property were sealed with seal bearing impression JS and HS. PW-3 ASI Dalbir Singh had duly identified appellants Pritpal Singh and Avtar Singh, who were known to him earlier. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case as all the witnesses examined by the prosecution had duly supported the prosecution case. The said witnesses had no enmity against the appellants to involve them falsely in this case. Appellant Pritpal Singh is the owner and driver of the truck in question, whereas, appellant Avtar Singh is his real brother. This fact itself is sufficient to lead to the presumption that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband and had fled away from the spot after leaving the truck in question at the spot. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any prejudice having been caused to the appellants on account of the fact that they were not specifically put during recording of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the appellants might have been falsely involved in this case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the appellants might have been falsely involved in this case. Learned Special Judge had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 15 of the Act. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ------------------------