PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bedi and A.S.Garg JJ.
Sitara Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 1995,
Decided On : AUGUST 7, 2000
Narcotic Drugs - Violation of Section 42 and Partial Offer under Section 50 - 42, 50 - The court discussed the compliance with Section 42 of the Act and the applicability of Section 50 in the context of the recovery of opium from a tractor. It highlighted the interpretations of these sections by the Supreme Court and their application to the case, ultimately influencing the decision to dismiss the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The police conducted a nakabandi and recovered 80 kilograms of opium from a tractor. The accused denied the allegations, claiming false implication and injuries from police torture.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, dismissed the defense's version, and convicted the accused.
Issues: Compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, validity of the offer under Section 50, and credibility of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 42 and 50, considered interpretations by the Supreme Court, and evaluated the evidence and credibility of the witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused.
H.S.Bedi, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :-
On 10th December, 1988, PW-1 Harmail Singh Inspector/S.H.O. of Police Station, Khalra accompanied by Sub Inspector Darshan Singh of Police Station, Bhikhiwind and ASI Kirpal Singh and other police officials, held a nakabandi in the area of village Pahuwind. At about 2.00 p.m. a tractor driven by Sitara Singh accused came from the side of Khalra. The tractor was stopped and on a search of the two gunny bags on the lift, 80 kilograms of opium was recovered. Samples of the opium were taken out and sent for analysis to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that the recovered article was opium. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called `the Act) and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial.
2 The prosecution in order to support its case examined Inspector Harmail Singh-PW1 and Sub Inspector Darshan Singh-PW2 who in their statements, stated that the accused had been given an offer under Section 50 of the Act and had advised him that he could, if he so wished, be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and as the accused had replied that he had full faith in the police, he had been searched by the Police Officers. These two witnesses also deposed to the recovery of opium in the manner already set out above. Inspector Amrik Singh-PW5 stated that the accused as well as the case property had been produced before him by S.I. Darshan Singh and that he had verified the facts and had sealed the case property with his own seal. Jagjit Singh-PW6, a Clerk from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, gave evidence to the effect that the tractor from which the opium had been recovered, belonged to one Gian Singh son of Bakshish Singh of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Nawan Shaher, District Ropar.
3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He further stated that a day or two earlier, the police had recovered an abandoned tractor and some opium and that the police had apprehended him, one Kulwant Singh of Gehri and Gurmit Singh and Baljinder Singh of Chuslewar. He also stated that the police had tortured him and fractured his leg, arm and foot in that process and he had, thereafter, been falsely roped in. He examined Dr. Kanwaljit Singh-DW1 in his defence, who, on his examination on 14th December, 1988 at P.H.C. Sur Singh had found eleven injuries on his person which had been caused with blunt weapons and on x-ray, injury Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 were found to be fractures of the bones.
4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, had been complied with. It was also found that the case property had been adequately sealed and kept secure after its seizure. It was further observed that as the recovery had been made in December, 1988 and the prosecution evidence was being recorded after 3 or 4 years, some minor discrepancies in the statements given by the Police Officers could be ignored. The defence version was held to be un-acceptable as Dr. Kanwaljit Singh-DW1, who had examined the accused on 14th December, 1988 had found that his injuries had been caused within 12 hours and the explanation had been tendered by S.I. Darshan Singh, who deposed that as the accused was being taken for some additional recovery pursuant to his disclosure statement, the tractor on which the accused had been travelling had overturned injuring him in the process. The trial Court, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) for the offence charged and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.