Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1416
2008(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 3065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Crl. Appeal No.1487-SB of 2007
Arun Kumar
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 20/08/2008}
For the Appellant:Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jindal, AAG, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Contraband--Sample impression of the seals neither prepared nor depoisted with MHC--Accused acquitted.
Headnote:(A) Contraband--False implication--Acquittal--Certificate issued by Board of Doctors shows that appellant was 100% blind--Prosecution story that accused was found carrying a bag containing 1 Kg 20 grams charas without any attendant or helper or without stick--Prosecution story is highly improbable and unnatural--Submissions that accused was falsely implicated accepted--Conviction and order of sentence set aside--|Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20. (Paras 13 & 15)
(B) Contraband--Law--Search and seizure--Provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57 are directory--However, the Investigating Officer cannot totally ignore these provisions--Statements of PWs do not reveal that they prepared the sample impression of the seals or deposited the same with the MHC--The link evidence became incomplete, resulting into causing dent in the prosecution case--|Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 52, 55, 57. (Para 12)
Sham Sunder. J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.7.2007, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar, vide which, it convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac. and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year, for having been found in possession of 1 kg and 20 grams Charas, without any permit or licence.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 23.7.2003, Balwan Singh SI, along-with other police officials, was going towards Cantt. Hisar, in Government Jeep No.HR-20/E/4485 and when they reached at T-point Satrod Khurd and turned towards Satrod Khurd, the light of vehicle was on. On seeing the vehicle, one person, turned back and started walking towards the field. He was having one polythene bag in his hand. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On enquiry, he disclosed his identity as Arun Kumar, Balwan Singh S.I. served a notice under Section 50 of the Act upon the accused, to the effect, that he suspected for having some contraband in the polythene bag and whether he wanted the search of the bag to be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused, however, reposed confidence in Balwan Singh, S.I. Thereafter a V.T. message was sent to Man Singh, D.S.P., to reach the spot. Accordingly, DSP Man Singh, reached the spot. The search of the bag was conducted, in accordance with the provision of law, in the presence of Man Singh, DSP, as a result whereof 1 kg and 20 grams Charas, was recovered therefrom. A sample of 20 grams charas, was taken out. The sample and the remaining charas were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.
3. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined SI Jagbir Singh, PW1, Constable Jai Singh, PW2, HC Jagdish Parshad PW3, A.S.I. Ram Kumar, PW4, SI Kanwal Singh PW5, DSP Man Singh PW6, SI Bani Singh PW7, and SI Balwan Singh PW8. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that he is a blind person, and could not walk without any attendant. He further stated that he was picked up, from his house, and falsely implicated, in the present case. He examined Dr. V.K. Kawatra DW1 and also relied upon the medical certificate Ex.D1 and copy of the order Ex.D2 passed by this Court on 5.2.2004. Thereafter the accused closed defence evidence.
6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.
7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that no independe
