Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 707
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
Amarjit Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2004,
Decided On : MARCH 17, 2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely sample analysis, proper documentation, and the need to establish conscious possession in narcotics cases.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under Section 15 - 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 15 and the requirement for timely chemical analysis of samples, as well as the importance of preparing CFSL form at the spot. The court also referenced Buta Singh v. State of Punjab and Avtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab to highlight the significance of timely dispatch of samples and the need for proper evidence of possession.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of poppy straw. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of poppy straw from the accused's car, but the defense raised issues regarding the delay in sample analysis and lack of proper documentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in sample analysis and the absence of CFSL form at the spot were fatal to the prosecution's case. Additionally, the court noted that the accused was not the owner of the car and questioned the evidence of possession.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timeliness of sample analysis, proper documentation, and evidence of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely sample analysis and the need for proper documentation, citing precedents to support its findings. The court also highlighted the significance of establishing conscious possession in cases involving narcotics.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted of the charged offense.
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th January, 2004/order of sentence dated 31st March, 2004 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Bhiwani, whereby she convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. One lac, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity `the Act).
2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 17th November, 202, ASI Subhash Chander among other police officials happended to be present in the area of Jhhupa Chowk for nakabandi. In the meantime, a car (Maruti) bearing registration No. DL-3CE-3087 being driven by Amarjit Singh-accused, came from Rajgarh side. One other person was also sitting with him. On being given a signal to stop the car by the aforesaid ASI, the accused turned back the car. The person who was seated with him took to heels from the car. Amarjit Singh was apprehended. On checking the car, two bags were recovered from the rear seat whereas 3 bags were found in the dickey of the car. The same were suspected containing some contraband. Notice Ex.PB was served upon the accused to the effect that the bags were suspected to contain some contraband and he should tell as to whether he wanted search of the same to be carried out in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Vide his reply Ex.PB/1, he expressed his desire to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. On receipt of the wireless message, DSP Ram Kumar came at the spot. On his direction, the bags were searched. The same were found containing poppy straw. 100 grams of poppy straw was drawn from each bag to serve as sample and converted into parcels. The residue of each bag, when weighed came to 39 kgs. 800 grams. The same was also made into parcels. All the parcels were sealed with seals `SC and `RK and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA . The car alongwith its registration certificate was also seized vide the same memo. The seal `SC after use was handed over to HC Om Parkash. The seal `RK was kept by the said DSP. Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the police station. On its basis, formal FIR was registered. The rough site plan, showing the place of recovery, was prepared. The witnesses, the accused and the case property alongwith the report Ex.PF under Section 57 of the Act were produced before the SHO, Police Station Siwani, who after verification, affixed his, own seal `RS. On his direction, the case property was deposited with MHC of the Police Station. On receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratorys report and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused.
3. The accused was charged under Section 15 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution has examined PW1, DSP Ram Kumar, PW2 SI/SHO Om Parkash, PW3 ASI Subhash Chander, Investigator, PW4 Sikandar alias Kala, PW5 SI Raghbir Singh, PW6 Constable Himmat Singh, PW7 HC Ram Phal and closed its evidence by tendering into evidence the Forensic Science Laboratorys report Ex.PH.
5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he preferred this appeal.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and circumspection.
8. Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate appea
