Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1377 (PNJ)

Bagga v. State Of Haryana

2010-04-06

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Accused - Bagga was sent up for trial by the Police of Police Station Pehowa to face trial under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). Vide judgment dated 23.2:2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Judge Special Court, Kurukshetra the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Act. Vide order dated 25.2.2005, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, the present appeal by the accused-appellant. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in paras No. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below :- "The prosecution case put, in brief, as per FIR and version of ASI Ram Pal (Investigating Officer) PW8, is as under :- On 21.3.2002, ASI Ram Pal along with other police officials was present on Dhand Road T point, Pehowa in connection with patrolling and checking of light vehicles where a secret information was received by him to the effect that accused Bagga Singh son of Gurbax Singh caste Jat Sikh resident of village Gumthala Garu is habitual of consuming and selling the poppy husk after bringing the same from Uttar Pradesh and on that day he was to go to his village on his motor cycle (Rajdoot) bearing No. HRD-8043; and if a Nakka bandi was effected there he could be apprehended red-handed. Taking the secret information to be reliable ASI Ram Pal (IO) with the help of his police officials effected Nakabandi and checking of the vehicles was made. After 15- 20 minutes, a motor cycle bearing No. HRD-8043 being driven by the accused came from the side of Pehowa. On seeing the police party, the accused stopped his motor cycle and tried to go back but he was over-powered by ASI Ram Pal (IO) with the help of other police officials. He was interrogated. On interrogation, he disclosed his name and address, as mentioned above. A plastic bag of white colour was tied with the ropes on the back of the motor- cycle. He was interrogated. On interrogation, he disclosed his name and address, as mentioned above. A plastic bag of white colour was tied with the ropes on the back of the motor- cycle. Notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon the accused vide which he was asked by ASI Ram Pal whether he wanted to give search of the plastic bag before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, because (he) accused was suspected of having Chura post in the plastic bag. Vide reply (Ex. PF/1) of notice (Ex. PF) the accused opted the search of the bag to be conducted before a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, ASI Ram Pal (IO) had produced the accused alongwith his motor cycle with plastic bag and the witnesses, before Sh. Rajbir Singh Dhiman,Tehsildar, Pehowa in his office and was apprised the facts of the case. Then on the direction of Rajbir Singh Dhiman Tehsildar ASI Ram Pal(IO) opened the mouth of the plastic bag. It was found to contain chura post. On weighment, it was found to be 10 kgs along with plastic bag. 250 grams was separated from it as a sample. Then the sample and the remaining contraband (Ex. PI) were separately sealed with the seals of RP and RD. The seal RP after its use and after retaining specimen seal impressions thereof was handed over to HC Phool Singh, whereas, Tehsildar Rajbir Singh Dhiman had kept his seal with himself. Thereafter,both the seated parcels motor cycle and specimen seal impressions were taken into police possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PD). It was duly attested by the witnesses HCs Phool Singh and Ranbir Singh. ASI Ram Pal (IO) had recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of Tehsildar Rajbir Singh Dhiman. The prosecution case further is that thereafter ASI Ram Pal (IO) alongwith other police officials reached the spot and prepared rough site plan (Ex. PG) with correct marginal notes and arrested the accused in the present case. He had also sent Ruqqa (Ex. PE) to the Police Station, Pehowa, through constable Mam Chand, on which formal FIR (Ex. PE/1) was recorded by SI Nafanjan Singh (PW5) who had also made his endorsement (Ex. PE/2) on Ruqqa (Ex. PE) regarding registration of the FIR. PG) with correct marginal notes and arrested the accused in the present case. He had also sent Ruqqa (Ex. PE) to the Police Station, Pehowa, through constable Mam Chand, on which formal FIR (Ex. PE/1) was recorded by SI Nafanjan Singh (PW5) who had also made his endorsement (Ex. PE/2) on Ruqqa (Ex. PE) regarding registration of the FIR. After completion of investigations at the spot, ASI Ram Pal then had produced the accused alongwith the case property and the witnesses before SI/SHO Naranajan Singh in Police Station, Pehowa and the later after verifying the facts from the accused and the witnesses had also affixed his own seal NSon both the sealed parcels as well as on specimen seal impressions. Thereafter on direction of SI/SHO Naranjan Singh, the Investigating Officer ASI Ram Pal (PW8) had deposited the case property etc. with the Moharrir Head Constable of the Police Station and had put the accused behind the bars. ASI Ram Pal (IO) had also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. SI/SHO Naranjan Singh had also sent the report under Section 57 of the Act to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Pehowa. On 26.3.2002 sample parcel with seals intact was handed over by MHC Surinder Singh (PW1) to Constable Karambir (PW2) for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and the later after depositing the same in the -aforesaid office had handed over the receipt in this regard to the MHC Surinder Singh. On receipt of the report of the FSL Madhuban and on completion of necessary investigations, SI/SHO Niranjan Singh had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 14.5.2002 who filed the same in Court of Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, the then learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court under the Act. 3. On appearance before the said Court, the accused was supplied copies of the respect under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure free of costs, as envisaged under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal procedure. After providing a hearing to the prosecution and to the defence, vide order dated 16.8.2002 of Sh. 3. On appearance before the said Court, the accused was supplied copies of the respect under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure free of costs, as envisaged under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal procedure. After providing a hearing to the prosecution and to the defence, vide order dated 16.8.2002 of Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, the then learned Presiding Officer of the Special court (under NDPS Act, 1985), the accused was charge-sheeted under Section 15 of the Act to the effect that on 21.3.2002 in the area of Police Station, Pehowa, he was found in his conscious possession 10 kgs of chura post, without any permit or licence. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused in simple Hindi to which he had pleaded not guilty claiming trial" 3 None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the last date also none had appeared on behalf of the appellant. 4. I have gone through the record of the case carefully with the able assistance of the learned State counsel. 5. As per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned State counsel, appellant has undergone 1 month 24 days of actual sentence and is not involved in any other criminal case. 6. Appellant was found in possession of 10 kilograms of poppy husk on 21.3.2002. PW8 ASI Ram Phal was present along with other police officials at T point in connection with checking of light motor vehicles. He received a secret information that the appellant was habitual of bringing poppy husk from Uttar Pradesh and was carrying the same on his motor cycle bearing No. HRD- 8043. After 15-20 minutes of the receipt of information, appellant was seen coming on his motorcycle from Pehowa side. Appellant was carrying poppy husk in a plastic bag, On search of the bag, 10 kilograms of poppy husk was recovered. Out of the recovered poppy husk. 250 grams was separated as sample. The sample as well as the remaining poppy husk were made into sealed parcels and were sealed with seal bearing impressions RP and RD. The sample as Well as case property were taken in possession. Appellant had failed to show any permit or licence for carrying contraband in his possession. The prosecution witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duty and had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. The sample as Well as case property were taken in possession. Appellant had failed to show any permit or licence for carrying contraband in his possession. The prosecution witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duty and had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. The prosecution had been successful in proving its case by examining the recovery witnesses as well as other witnesses to complete the link evidence. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 15 of the Act. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment to already undergone by the appellant. A perusal of order dated 17.3.2005 reveals that fine has already been deposited by the appellant. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. disposed of.