SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 283

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
State of Punjab
Versus
Hari Singh & Others
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2009 (Arising out of (SLP (Crl.) No. 1508 of 2006)
Decided On: 16-02-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Kuldip Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sheetal Prasad Juneja, Advocate.

Headnote:A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 313, Narcotic Drugs and Pharmaceutical Substances Act, Section 35:- Where 16 kgs of puppy husk was alleged to have been recovered from a bag on which the accused is said to be sitting at the time of the recovery but no question was put to him under Section 313 cr.P.C., with regard to circumstances in which he sat over it, it cannot be presumed that he was in conscious possession of the recovered goods, because the compliance of section 313 is not an empty formality. (Para 17, 18, 32 and 34)

       B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 313:- It is not necessary that in all cases the accused shall be personally present to give answsers for the questions under Section 313, but in a fit case where the accused could not be present personally in the court like seriously ill or otherwise, a question ire can be sent to him which he can send back with the answers and if he fails to send the same, he will forfeits the right. (Para 34,37 to 39 and 40)

       C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 313,205:- Personal appearance of the accused during examination under Section 313 only in a summons case, which means a case in which imprisonment for not more than two years can be imposed, but not in other prosecutions. (Para 28 and 35)

       D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 243, 273:- An accused in a warrant case has a right to file a written statement which has to be taken into account even if it were a case triable3 by a Sessions Court. (Para 36)

       E) Narcotic Drugs and Pharmaceutical Substances Act, Section 35:- Where the accused was found to be sitting on 6 bags full 16 kgs. Puppy husk, it will be deemed that he is in possession of the contraband, but the fact that he was not in conscious possession of the same is something which he had to prove himself as it is within his personal knowledge as to how he was in possession of the same. (Para 13 to 16)

Judgment:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The State of Punjab is in appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, allowing the appeal filed by the present respondents, who were accused nos.1 to 4. They faced trial for offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the `Act). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each with default stipulations. They were convicted by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, for having been found to be in possession of 16 bags of poppy husk, each containing 30 kgs.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 9.7.1999, SI Krishan Kumar along with other police officials and one PW Gurjail Singh was going from village Kadrabad to Gajewas and when they were three kilometers away from the village, they noticed three men and two women sitting on the bags lying between the surgarcane fields and a heap of earth. On seeing the police party, these persons tried to slip away. Sub Inspector Krishan Kumar stopped the vehicle and apprehended accused Puran Singh, Hari Singh, Jaswinder Kaur and Charanjit Kaur while 5th accused (who was identified as Amrik Singh by Gurjail Singh) slipped away. The Sub-Inspector sent a wireless message to the police station and called S.P.Os Rajwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur to the spot and in their presence apprised the apprehended persons that the police want to search the bags on which they had been sitting and they could ask for search being conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In response to this, the persons opted for being searched by a Gazetted Officer. Their statements were recorded and through wireless, S.I. Krishan Kumar requested DSP, Samana Shri Paramvir Gill to reach at the spot and in his presence the bags were taken and grounds of arrest served upon the appellants and eventually after receipt of adverse report from the Chemical Examiner a challan was presented against them.

4. After considering the materials and evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie a case under Section 15 of the Act was made out against the accused and as they pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence. It examined SI Manjit Singh (PW-1), HC Rakesh Kumar (PW-2), DSP P.S. Gill (PW-3), Inspector Krishan Kumar (PW-4), Gurtej Singh (PW-5) and SI Gurcharan Singh (PW6).

5. After conclusion of the evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case were put to the accused, who denied the allegations and asserted that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the police due to enmity. Puran Singh asserted that Inspector Paramjit Singh who was posted as SHO, Police Station, Dirba, District Sangrur and ASI Jarnail Singh are inimical towards him. The police officials had picked up his sons Amrik Singh, Baghel Singh and his nephew Paramjit Singh on 16.4.1987. Aggrieved by this, Puran Singh had filed a writ petition of habeas corpus and when this petition came up for hearing. Mr. M.L. Bharara, Superintendent of High Court, who was appointed as Warrant Officer had also been brought into Police Station by ASI Jarnail Singh and when the Warrant Officer inquired about him, the Police Officials replied that he had given him a thousand rupee as bribe for making a false report. Action under the Contempt of Courts Act had been initiated against two officials and Inspector Paramjit Singh had been fined with Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of two months. Again, Gurusewak Singh, who was DSP Railways had picked up his son and brother-in-law. His brother-in-law was killed and in that case his son had appeared as a witness against the police officials and writ petition had also been filed against them in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Due to this, Police






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top