IMPORTANT POINT
Contraband—Secret Information—Compliance of the provisions of the Section 42 of the Act is mandatory and any violation thereof would result in the benefit going the way of the accused person.

Mahesh Grover, J.- This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 28.5.2005 and order dated 30.5.2005 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter described as ‘the trial Court’) vide which the .appellant was convicted under Section’ 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic, Substances Act,1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous, imprisonment for a period of two years.

The facts of the case are that on 13.6.2002, A.S.I. Rattan Singh of Police Station, City, Dabwali along with his companions was present at the Bus Stop, Village Jogewala in connection with official duties. There, he received a secret information that Harcharan Singh alias Balla son of Baghel Singh, resident of Village Desu Jodhan, District Sirsa (appellant herein) used to smuggle poppy straw and if an immediate raid was conducted, the contraband in heavy quantity can be recovered from his house.

2. Upon receiving the aforesaid information, A.S.I. Rattan Singh reduced it into writing as required under Section 42 of the Act and sent the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali through constable Jai Singh. A.S.I.Rattan Singh thereafter formed a raiding party and associated Hakam Singh, Chowkidar of village Desu Jodhan therein and reached the house of the appellant. On reaching there, they saw one person having a gunny bag on his head and on plastic bag in his hand and he was entering the house of the appellant. A.S.I. Rattan Singh asked Hakam Singh, Chowkidar to join the investigation, but he showed his helplessness. The person, who was carrying the gunny bag on his head, was known to A.S.I. Rattan Singh, who identified him as Harcharan Singh-appellant. On seeing the police party, the appellant is alleged to have run away from the site and managed to escape leaving behind the alleged contraband. The gunny bag and the plastic bag were opened and the same were found containing poppy straw. Two samples of 100 Grams each were separated from both the bags. Thereafter, the bags were weighed and they were found having weight of 39 Kgs. 900 Grams and 11 Kgs. 900 Grams, respectively. The samples and the bags were separately sealed with the seal of ‘R.S.’ After use and preserving the sample’ impression of the seal, it was handed over to H.C. Wazir Singh. The recovery memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer, who sent a ruqa through Constable Mangat Ram to the Police Station, City, Dabwali on the basis of which F.I.R.No.125 dated 13.6.2002 under Section 15 of the Act was registered. The Investigating Officer also prepared a rough site plan. He produced the case property and his report under Section 57 of the Act before Inspector Ram Rattan, S.H.O., Police Station, City, Dabwali, who verified the facts of the case from the witnesses and affixed his seal ‘RR’ on the parcels. Thereafter, he forwarded the report under Section 57 of the Act to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali and returned the case property to A.S.I. Rattan Singh for depositing the same with the M.H.C. of the Police Station.

After completing the necessary investigation, challan under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented before the Court and the appellant was sent to stand trial.

3. The appellant was accordingly charge sheeted under Section 15 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. They included the official witnesses who were associated with raid, sealing of samples, sending of ruqa, recording of formal F.I.R etc. The affidavit of the M.H.C., as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit PE) were also produced in evidence to establish the guilty of the appellant.

5. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the entire incriminating evidence was put to the appellant, who pleaded false implicatio