Examination of accused--In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. only the incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence, were required to be put, and not the presumption of law.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 7.12.1998, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Barnala, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Ranjit Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 18 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 two years.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 23.6.1997, Daya Singh, Inspector, accompanied by Nazir Singh, ASI, Palvinder Singh, ASI, and other police officials, was going from Mehal Kalan to village Dhaner, on the katcha path, and when the police party reached near the drain bridge, in the area of Dhaner, Ranjit Singh, accused, came from the side of village Dhaner. He had a bag (jhola) in his right hand. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away, but was apprehended on suspicion. In the meanwhile, Natha Singh, public witness arrived, who was joined with the police party. Search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law. It was found containing 1 kg. 500 grams opium. Two samples of 20 grams each, were taken out, from the recovered opium. The samples, and the remaining opium, were converted into 3 parcels, and sealed with the seal bearing impression `DS belonging to Daya Singh, Inspector. The parcels were also sealed with the seal bearing impression DS belonging to Devinder Singh Garcha, S.P. (O), who had come to the spot, on receipt of the message. Thereafter, the case property was taken into possession. The accused was arrested. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 18 of the Act, was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed Judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Karnail Singh, Constable (PW-1), Nazir Singh, ASI (PW-2), Daya Singh, Inspector (PW-3), Devinder Singh Garcha, Asstt. Commandant 7th Batallian, PAP, Jallandhar (PW- 4), and Ajaib Singh, MHC (PW-5). Thereafter, the Addl. PP for the State, closed the prosecution evidence, after tendering into evidence Ex.PI, report of the Chemical Examiner.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, examined Surjit Singh, Constable, DW-1, and Bachan Lal, SI, (DW-2), Incharge Wireless, H.Q.Barnala. He also tendered into evidence copies of the reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in cases State v. Natha Singh, and State v. Ramesh Kumar, Ex.DC, Ex.DD, Ex.DE, and Ex.DF. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.

6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced 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 Ranjit Singh, 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 Natha Singh, public witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of the alleged recovery, yet he was not examined, and giv