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

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
Makhan Ram- Appellant
versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 236-SB of 1993
Decided on 6.1.1995
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant: Sarwan Singh. For the Respondent: G.S. Gill, A.A.G.

Headnote:(i) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 15 - Recovery of 7 bags of poppy husk on disclosure made by accused from his house - Solitary public witness cited by prosecution not produced - No attempt was made to join public witness from near house of appellant - Seal after use was given to police witness and not to public witness who was with police - Case can not be said established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 7 & 8)

       (ii) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 55 - Duty of Officer in charge of police station to take charge of property. Provision is mandatory Non-compliance vitiates trial. (Paras 9 & 10)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

ORDER

V.S. Aggarwal, J. - This is an appeal filed by Makhan Ram (hereinafter described as 'Appellant') directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by Shri D.S. Chatha, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 12.7.1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter described as 'Act') and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.One lac. In default of payment of fine, appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case in brief is that on 4.5.1990, Assistant Sub Inspector Sikattar Singh accompanied by Head Constable Surinder Kumar and some other officials were present near Bus Stand Nurmahal. They were patrolling the area and investigating the case FIR No. 177/89, Police Station, Phillaur. We appellant was seen coming from the side of Railway Line Phillaur. On seeing the Police Party, the appellant tried to avoid them. Kulbir Singh, a public witness also came there. He was joined in the police party.

3. The appellant was stopped on suspicion. He was interrogated. He made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed 7 bags of poppy husk in a heap of straw inside his residential house and can get the same recovered. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing and attested by Head Constable, Surinder Kumar besides Kulbir Singh the public witness. The appellant spurned the offer that a Gazetted Officer may well be joined before the recovery.

4. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he led the police party to his residential house and got recovered 7 bags of poppy husk. Each was weighed and found to be of 45 kilograms 250 gms. was taken from each bag as sample. The sample and the rest of the bags were converted into parcels and scaled with the seal of SS. All these packets were taken in to possession vide a recovery memo. The seal after use was given to Head Constable Surinder Kumar. Formal F.I.R. was got registered. The seal parcels and the accused were produced before the Sub Inspector, Kamaljit Singh, Officer Incharge of the Police Station Phillaur. After satisfying himself about the contents of the bags, he affected his seal of K.S. on the samples and the bags. All these articles were deposited in the Malkhana. Head Constable Santosh Singh was the Malkhana Moharrir. Subsequently the samples were sent to Chemical Examiner. The report was received that they are poppy heads. This led to the submission of the case in Court.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the testimony of the two official witnesses and concluded that it has successfully been proved that the poppy husk were recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant and held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 15 of the Act. It was followed by the order of sentence already mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence the present appeal has been filed.

6. The case of the prosecution rests on the statements of two witnesses namely Head Constable Surinder Kumar P.W. 1 and A.S.I. Sikkatar Singh, P.W. 2, Kulbir Singh was the solitary public witness. On 7.7.1993, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not produce Kulbir Smgh as having been won over by the appellant and closed the prosecution evidence. In these circumstances, necessarily one has to appreciate the testimonies of two official witnesses mentioned above.

7. Needless to say both the official witnesses supported the prosecution case pertaining to the disclosure statement and in pursuance thereto the recovery of 7 bags of poppy husks at the instance of the appellant. Their testimonies were subject matter of criticism on the ground that no witness of the locality has been joined before effecting the search. There is no controversy with the proposition of law that statement of witness

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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