Strict compliance with legal provisions and the need for complete and untampered link evidence in drug-related cases

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 09.10.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Sheera Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year.

2. The facts, in brief are that on 02.07.1993 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector along with other police officials, was present in the area of village Maujgarh and when reached near the bridge of canal minor, from the opposite side, the accused was seen coming on foot. He was carrying a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away. He was apprehended. Search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law. It was found containing 10 kgs. of poppy-husk. A sample of 250 grams was separated. The sample as well as the remaining poppy-husk, were duly sealed with the seal bearing impression MS, and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo Ex.PC. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Kewal Kumar, Constable ( PW-1 ), Mohinder Singh, ASI, ( PW-2 ), Dinesh Singh, ASI, ( PW-3 ), and Balkar Singh, Inspector, ( PW-4 ). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PF, and closed the same.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, produced no evidence, in his defence.

6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that though the alleged recovery was effected on 02.07.1993, yet the sample was sent to the Office of the Chemical Examiner, on 08.07.1993. He further submitted that no explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, delay of six days, was caused in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. The delay, in sending the sample, to the Laboratory assumed added significance, as the seal after use, by the Investigating Officer, was handed over to his junior Police official, whereas the seal after use by the S.H.O, was retained by him. It means that, the Investigating Officer, and the S.H.O., could certainly tamper with the case property, and the contents of the sample, until it (sample) was sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Had any explanation, been furnished, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof, but in the absence of any explanation, having been furnished, in this regard, the Court cannot coin any of its own, to fit in with the prosecution case. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 611,