Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 167
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Madan, J.
Pala Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Decided On : JANUARY 23, 2008
The importance of joining independent witnesses during recovery, timely dispatch of samples for chemical examination, and the interpretation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs - Criminal Appeal - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and also referred to Section 50 of the Act. The court highlighted the interpretation of Section 50 and its applicability to the search of containers carried by individuals. The court also emphasized the importance of timely dispatch of samples for chemical examination and cited relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for carrying opium. The appellant claimed innocence, alleging false implication due to village factionalism.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to join independent witnesses during the recovery and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in sending the sample for chemical examination. The court also rejected the appellant's claim of false implication due to lack of evidence.
Issues: Non-joining of independent witnesses, delay in sending the sample for chemical examination, and false implication of the appellant due to village factionalism.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of joining independent witnesses during recovery and the timely dispatch of samples for chemical examination. The court also highlighted the interpretation of Section 50 of the Act in relation to the search of containers carried by individuals.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge and discharged from the bail bonds.
R.S.Madan, J.
1. This is a criminal appeal filed by Pala Ram son of Boga Ram and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 12.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, who convicted the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (to be referred as "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that on 18.10.1993 at about 9.40 p.m., a police party headed by SI Jasrath Singh (investigating officer) along with other police officials was present at Bus-stand, Dhangar, in connection with patrol duty and excise checking. In the meantime a person having a steel Dibba (a tin box) in his right hand was seen coming from the side of the village. The appellant on seeing the police party at once turned back and started walking rapidly, which created suspicion in the mind of the police. The investigating officer suspected the accused to be carrying some contraband and had accordingly served a notice, Ex.PF, upon him asking him whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted officer or Magistrate. Pursuant to his reply, Ex.PF/1, the accused was searched in the presence of Mange Ram, the then DSP Fatehabad. On search, 800 grams opium was recovered from the steel box out of which 50 grams was separated as sample. The sample and the remaining quantity of recovered opium, Ex.P1, were separately sealed with the seal "JS" of the investigating officer and also the seal "MR" of Mange Ram DSP. Both the parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PD. The investigating officer handed over his own seal "JS" to Head Constable Guriya Ram. After preparing spot formalities i.e. the rough site plan, Ex.PG, of the place of recovery, recording of statements of the witnesses, the investigating officer sent a ruqqa, Ex.PH, to the police station which forms the basis of FIR, Ex.PH/1, which was recorded by SI Dharam Pal. The accused along with contraband recovered and report, Ex.PB, was produced before SHO Sukhdev Singh, who also made his own endorsement, Ex.PB/1, on the report. SHO also verified the investigation. The case property was handed over to the MHC. The sample was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis, who found the contents to be that of opium.
3. The challan against the appellant was presented in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate, who, in turn, sent it to the Court of Sessions.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellant for the aforesaid offence vide order dated 12.7.1994. He having pleaded not guilty, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence. Prosecution examined four witnesses in support of their case, namely, PW1 Inspector Sukhdev Singh, PW2 DSP Mange Ram, PW3 ASI Guriya Ram, PW4 DSP Jasrath Singh (the then investigating officer) and tendered in evidence the affidavit of Constable Balbir Singh, and report of the chemical examiner Ex.PJ.
5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction in the village. The appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.
6. On the completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 18 of the Act, the appellant came up in appeal to this Court.
7. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the evidence produced on the record.
8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the case of the prosecution has no legs to stand as the investigating officer had n
