IMPORTANT POINT
True that provision of Sections 52 and 57 are directory and violation of these provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, IO cannot totally ignore these provisions and such failure will have a being on appreciation of evidence regarding arrest of the accused or seizure of the article.

JUDGMENT

R.P. Nagrath, J.— This is-an appeal against the conviction of appellants recorded by the Judge, Special Court under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). Being commercial quantity, appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

2. The version of prosecution is that on 4.5.1994, police party headed by Inspector Teja Singh, SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda was present at Naruana road in connection with checking of vehicles. Chand Singh son of Kala Singh a private witness was also present with the police party. Major Singh DSP City Bathinda came there and was issuing instructions with regard to checking of the vehicles. in the meanwhile, the police party saw Truck No.PB-03-2808 coming from Naruana side at a fast speed. Inspector Teja Singh stopped the vehicle with the help of other officials. The driver and other occupant of the truck sitting in cabin, tried to run away. Kulwant Singh appellant No.1, the driver was apprehended at the spot but his accomplice managed to escape.

3. Search of the truck was conducted by Inspector Teja Singh in the presence of DSP Major Singh. The truck was found loaded with four bags containing 32 kgs. of poppy-husk each 100 gms. of poppy-husk from each of these bags were separated as samples. The samples and remaining gunny bags each containing 30 kgs. 900 gms. of poppy-husk were prepared into parcels sealed with seal bearing impression ‘TS’ of the Inspector. Seal after use was handed over to ASI Dinesh Kumar.

4. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA attested by other police officials, the DSP and also Chand Singh PW. The truck was also takes into possession vide separate memo Ex.PB. Ruqa EX.PD was sent to the Police Station and formal FIR Ex. PDl was registered. Rough sketch Ex. PE of the place of recovery was also prepared.

5. All the four sample parcels were sent for analysis to the office of Chemical Examiner and the contents were found to be poppy Head vide report Ex. PK.

6. Bhura Singh-appellant No.2 was arrested on 15.5.1994 by PW2 Manohar Lal Inspector, then posted as Additional SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. After the challan was presented a charge was framed against both the appellants for offence under Section 15 of the Act.

7. The prosecution examined four witnesses in support of its case.

8. The appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. Kulwant Singh-appellant No.1 pleaded that the recovery was in fact made from Naresh Kumar and Rikhi Ram, owners of the truck but the appellant was falsely implicated by arresting him from his house. Bhura Singh-appellant No.2 pleaded that he was not accompanying Kulwant Singh appellant No.1 nor anything was recovered from him. He was apprehended from his house in the presence of Piara Singh, ex-member Panchayat and Amar Singh son of Arjan Singh and illegally detained in the police station. In defence Bhura Singh appellant No.2 examined Amar Singh as DW1.

9. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, the State counsel and carefully perused the trial Court record.

11. The prosecution version with regard to recovery was testified by PW1 Inspector Teja Singh Investigating Officer and PW3 Major Singh, Superintendent of Police (Operations), who was then posted as DSP. Four bags of poppy-husk which were prepared into sealed parcels were produced as Ex.P2 to P5 during examination of PW1. Both these witnesses stated that sample seal was also prepared separately as Ex.Pl at the spot which was affixed on the report of Chemical Examiner.

12. PW3/A Inspector Gurjant Singh then posted as SHO of the police station recorded the statement of Transport R