The provisions of Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, empower police officers to conduct search and seizures and to investigate contraventions of the Act.

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Appellant-accused Piara has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated December 8, 1986 whereby he was held guilty under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) by Shri G.S. Khurana, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, and was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that on December 9, 1985, Head Constable Sat Pal PW-2 of Police Station Nawanshahr along with Head Constable Raj Kumar and Constable Sukhdev Ram was going on raid from Bus Stand Aur to village Arapar. After covering a distance of about 200 yards from Bus Stand Aur, they noticed the accused going ahead of them carrying a Jhola. Noticing the police party coming behind him, he tried to slip away walking briskly. On suspicion he was apprehended. Search of that Jhola was taken. It contained 5 Kgs of poppy husk. 100 grams were separated therefrom and were sealed separately. Remainder was sealed in that Jhola itself. Seal bring impression SP was used. Seizure Memo. Exhibit PA was prepared. After use, seal was handed over the Head Constable Raj Kumar PW 1. Ruqa Exhibit PB was sent to the Police Station, whereupon FIR Exhibit PB/1 was recorded under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1978. Sat Pal PW 2 prepared the rough site plan Exhibit PC. Statement of Head Constable Raj Kumar was recorded by Head Constable Sat Pal. The seized contraband along with the accused was brought to the Police Station. Sealed parcels were deposited with MHC Jasbir Singh. Later on sample was sent to Assistant Chemical Examiner, Amritsar. On analysis, the Expert confirmed vide his report Exhibit PD that it was poppy husk. Thus, the appellant was prosecuted under Section 15 of the Act.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty. His plea was that earlier his grand-mother filed a complaint against police officials of P.S. Nawanshahr. In order to pressurise her this false case was foisted on the accused.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar PW 1 and Sat Pal PW 2. Affidavits of MHC Jasbir Singh Exhibit PE and of Joginder Singh Exhibit PF were tendered in evidence. Report of Assistant Chemical Examiner Exhibit PD was also tendered in evidence. Accused also adduced evidence and examined Lachhman Dass DW 1.

5. On the appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that on December 9, 1985, the accused was having in his possession 5 Kgs of poppy husk for which he was not having any licence or permit. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as stated at the very outset.

6. Appellants learned counsel assailed the conviction and sentence on various grounds. His first contention is that Head Constable Sat Pal PW 2 was in no better position that a complainant of this case. It is evident from the statements of Sat Pal PW 2 and Rai Kumar PW 1 that Sat Pal investigated this offence as well. He not only seized the contraband from the accused but also prepared its sample, sealed both the parcels, sent the ruqa prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses and deposited seized contraband with MHC Jasbir Singh. Thus, according to him, the whole of the investigation being against the settled tenets of criminal jurisprudence, is vitiated and on this count alone, the accused is entitled to acquittal. To strengthen his above argument, he was relied on Gyan Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Crl. L.J. 3716, Darshan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Crl. L.J. (NOC) 28, Nathiya v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Crl. L.J. 2342 and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 985. He also referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court rendered by K.K. Srivastava, J. in Criminal Appeal No. 7-SB of 1987 decided on March 19, 1995, wherein relying on Gyan Chands and Darshan Kumars cases (supra) it was held