Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.K.Jain, J.
Shera Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1994,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 1, 1996
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - SECTION 15 - POSSESSION OF POPPY HUSK - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 50 OF THE ACT - COMPLIANCE - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for possessing four bags of poppy husk. The prosecution witnesses, including police officers and an independent witness, testified about the recovery of the poppy husk from the appellant and the subsequent proceedings. The appellant's defense witness, who was also present during the recovery, denied the incident and claimed that he was forced to sign blank documents. The court found the police officers' testimony to be reliable and consistent, and held that the fact that the independent witness turned hostile did not render the entire case a fabrication. The court also found that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, which require the searching officer to inform the accused of their right to demand a search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, were duly complied with. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found in possession of four bags of poppy husk during a police patrol. He initially admitted to the presence of poppy husk in the bags but later denied the incident and claimed false implication. The prosecution presented evidence from police officers and an independent witness, while the appellant's defense witness contradicted the prosecution's account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the police officers' testimony to be reliable and consistent, and held that the fact that the independent witness turned hostile did not render the entire case a fabrication. The court also found that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, which require the searching officer to inform the accused of their right to demand a search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, were duly complied with.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the failure to examine certain witnesses in the presence of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was fatal to the prosecution case. 3. Whether the testimony of the police officers was reliable and sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. 4. Whether the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were duly complied with.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the reliable and consistent testimony of the police officers. 2. The court held that the failure to examine certain witnesses in the presence of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not fatal to the prosecution case, as the appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by such omission. 3. The court held that the testimony of the police officers was reliable and sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt, despite the fact that an independent witness turned hostile. 4. The court held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were duly complied with, as the searching officer had informed the appellant of his right to demand a search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
P.K.Jain, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 7.10.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The backdrop of the prosecution case is that on 3.3.1991, Assistant Sub Inspector Gulzar Singh along with Head Constable Bogha Singh, Constable Paramjit Singh and one Karnail Singh, son of Jagar Singh, Jat, resident of village Lehal Khurd, was on patrolling duty. They were going from village Bhutal Kalan towards village Kallbanjara on the kacha path. When they reached the area of village Kallbanjara, the appellant was spotted sitting on the gunny bags on the pavement of the bridge-drain. On seeing the police party the appellant felt perplexed but was apprehended on suspicion. When the appellant was asked about the material in the gunny bags he replied that there was poppy husk therein. On it, Assistant Sub Inspector Gulzar Singh made an offer to the appellant if he wanted the search of the gunny bags to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but he reposed faith in the said Assistant Sub Inspector. His statement Ex.PA was recorded which was thumb marked by him and attested by Head Constable Bogha Singh and Karnail Singh. The gunny bags on search were found to contain poppy husk. Two samples weighing 250 grams each of poppy husk were taken out of each of the four gunny bags. Each gunny bag was found to contain 35 kilograms of poppy husk. Sample parcels of the remaining poppy husk in the bags were sealed by Assistant Sub Inspector Gulzar Singh with the seal having the impression GS and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. The seal after use was handed over to Karnail Singh. Sample seal Ex.P.1 was also prepared separately. Ruqa (Ex.PC) was sent to the police station through Constable Paramjit Singh on the basis of which formal F.I.R. (Ex.PC/1) was recorded by MHC Bhagwan Dass. Rough site plan Ex.PD was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After reaching the police station, Assistant Sub Inspector Gulzar Singh produced the accused and the case property before the Station House Officer, Sub Inspector Ajaib Singh who after verifying the facts to be true, put his own seal bearing the impression A S on the case property and directed Assistant Sub Inspector Gulzar Singh to deposit the same with M.H.C. After completion of investigation and other formalities of the case, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
3. A charge under Section 15 of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Head Constable Bogha Singh (PW-1), Assistant Sub Inspector Gulzar Singh (PW-2) and Sub Inspector Ajaib Singh (PW-3). The affidavits Ex.PA and Ex.PE of Constable Rajbir Singh and MHC Bhagwan Dass and report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PF were tendered in evidence.
5. After the close of the prosecution case, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he totally denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded his innocence. He examined Karnail Singh (DW-1) in his defence.
6. While placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the three prosecution witnesses and the documents tendered in evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the appellant beyond any doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence this appeal.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the trial courts record.
8. Shri R. S. Ghai, Senio
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
