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

2011 Supreme(SC) 171

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
Jarnail Singh
Versus
State of Punjab
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1960 OF 2009
Decided on : 11-02-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh, R.C. Kaushik, Advocates. For the Respondent:H.M. Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Kuldip Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 136 - Jurisdiction and powers of Apex Court under Article 136 are very wide - Appeal under Article 136 cannot be converted into third appeal on facts - Interference with concurrent findings of fact would be an exception and not rule. (Para 8)

       (2005) 6 SCC 211 - Relied.

       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 – Search - In case recovery of narcotic is made from container being carried by individual, provisions of Section 50 would not be attracted - Section 50 can be invoked only in cases where narcotic substance is recovered as a consequence of body search of accused. (Para 13)

       (1999) 8 SCC 257; (2003) 8 SCC 666; (2005) 4 SCC 350-Relied.

       Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25 – Confession - A statement in order to be treated as a confession must either admit in terms of an offence, or substantially all the facts which constitute offence - Consent statement signed by appellant not been as a confession - Bar under Section 25 would not be applicable. (Para 14)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 293 - Chemical report - Report of Chemical Examiner indicating that seals were intact when sample was received and tallied with sample impression of seal would be admissible under Section. (Para 15)

       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 18 and 50 - Seizure of huge quantity of opium - Ten years R.I. and fine of Rs. one lac awarded - Merely because prosecution has not examined any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that appellant has been falsely implicated - Unintentional delay in sending sample of narcotic to office of Chemical Examiner would not be sufficient to conclude that sample has been tampered with - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16)

       (2009) 15 SCC 795-Relied.

Judgment :-

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final Order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 12th May, 2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 590 - SB of 1999, whereby the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed against the appellant herein under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"), and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two years, for having been found in possession of 1 kg and 750 grams of opium without any permit or licence.

2. The prosecution story is that on 23rd September, 1994 at around 2.30 PM, Inspector Ram Pal Singh (PW4) along with SI Gurdeep Singh, ASI Satpal Singh (PW5) and other officials were on duty and coming from village Hassanpur to village Mirsapur. After reaching near the bridge of canal minor while going on kacha path, the police party noticed the appellant coming from the bank of canal. On seeing the police party, the appellant tried to run away but on suspicion he was apprehended. On enquiry, he informed the police about his name, parentage, address etc. At that time, he was carrying a bag (thaili) in his right hand. PW4 suspected that that the appellant was carrying some incriminating articles in his bag. The search was conducted and the police party recovered 1 Kg and 750 gram opium from his custody.

3. Ten grams of opium was put into a tin container as a sample. It was duly sealed. The entire case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PD attested by SI Gurdeep Singh and ASI Satpal Singh. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Satpal Singh (PW5). The appellant could not produce any valid license or permit for possession of the said opium. On personal search, currency notes amounting to Rs. 25 /- was also recovered from the accused and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P1, signed by the appellant. Ruqa Ex. PF was sent to the police station and subsequently the FIR was registered. Inspector, Ram Pal (PW4) recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the appellant.

4. Inspector, Ram Pal (PW4) then produced the appellant along with the case property and witnesses before Satpal Singh (PW5) on the same day of the alleged crime. PW4 enquired about the alleged incident from other witnesses and checked the case property and also affixed his own seal bearing impression `RP' on the case property and on samples of seal Ex. PD/1. Thereafter, PW3 at 7.30 PM deposited the sealed case property with MHC Shudh Singh.

The investigation was duly completed and challan against the appellant was prepared by S.I. Bagh Singh. The prosecution in support of its case, examined Sudh Singh (Head Constable) (PW1), Chet Ram (PW2), Rachpal Singh (Inspector) (PW3), Ram Pal Singh (PW4) and Satpal Singh (PW5).

5. The Addl. Sessions Judge vide its final order and judgment dated 19th May, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 18 of the NDPS Act, as noticed above. The High Court, in an appeal, vide judgment dated 12th May, 2008 affirmed the findings of the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence the appeal before this Court.

6. We have heard the counsel for both parties. Mr. Ujjal Singh, counsel for the appellant submits as follows:

i. The whole incident happened in a densely populated area and there were so many independent witnesses but only the police have been made the prosecution witnesses. The appellant has been falsely implicated.

ii. The courts below have not considered the appellant's version as recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant was apprehended from his village on 10th September, 1994 by the police party. Another police party dug up his house and courtyard looking for illicit arms. But nothing incriminating was found. The Ex-Sarpanch, Narang Singh asked



































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