Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 569
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Jaswant Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 443-SB of 1987.
Decided On : 3 June, 1999
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumeet Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate.
Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in cases of chance recovery where the Investigating Officer had no prior information.
Headnote:
NDPS ACT - SECTION 50 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - COMPLIANCE - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 50 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASES OF CHANCE RECOVERY WHERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER HAD NO PRIOR INFORMATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was arrested on suspicion of carrying opium. A search of his bag revealed 3 kgs of opium. The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act were not complied with, and that no independent witness was associated by the Investigating Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in cases of chance recovery where the Investigating Officer had no prior information. The court also held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act are not mandatory and that the failure to comply with these provisions does not automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal. The court further held that the testimony of police officers can be relied upon to convict an accused, even in the absence of independent corroboration.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable in cases of chance recovery where the Investigating Officer had no prior information. 2. Whether the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act are mandatory. 3. Whether the testimony of police officers can be relied upon to convict an accused, even in the absence of independent corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in cases of chance recovery where the Investigating Officer had no prior information. 2. The provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act are not mandatory and the failure to comply with these provisions does not automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal. 3. The testimony of police officers can be relied upon to convict an accused, even in the absence of independent corroboration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal appeal filed by Jaswant Singh son of Sardul Singh and has been directed against the judgment dated 24.7.1987 and order dated 27.7.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who convicted the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo RI for a period of one year.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.3.1986 a police party headed by ASI Shri Krishan along with HC Babu Lal, Constable Krishan Lal and Constable Bajrang Dass was present at bus stand, Chautala on G.T. Road for the purpose of patrolling and crime checking. When the police party was talking with cash other, appellant Jaswant Singh came there on foot from the side of village Sangaria and at that time he was carrying a bag in his right hand. He was proceeding towards bus stand Chautala and on seeing the police party he tried to take a turn, but on the basis of suspicion he was apprehended by the Thanedar in the presence of other members of the police party. Personal search of the accused was taken as per procedure, as a result of which opium wrapped in a wax paper was recovered from the red and white stripped bag of plastic having two straps which the accused was carrying in his right hand. On weighment, the opium came to 3 Kgs. The Thanedar separated 50 grams of opium by way of sample and made a sealed parcel thereof in a small empty tin box. The entire case property was taken into possession. The Thanedar used the seal bearing inscription SK for sealing the case property. Sample seal was also preserved and the seal after use was handed over to HC Babu Lal. The accused could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the opium. Resultantly, ruqa was sent to the police station for the registration of case, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. under Section 18 of the Act was recorded. Finally, the sample of the opium was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, who declared the contents as opium and on completion of other formalities of the case, accused was challaned in the court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 3.3.1987 committed the accused to the Court of Session.
3. Vide order dated 18.3.1987 accused was charge-sheeted under Section 18 of the Act on the allegations that on 8.3.1986 in the area of village Chautala he kept in his possession 3 Kgs. of opium without any permit or licence and thereby he committed the offence. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined HC Babu Lal PW1 and ASI Siri Kishan PW2. The prosecution also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.PD of Ram Pal, affidavit Ex.PE of HC Satbir Singh, report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PF and closed the case.
5. On the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. Accused denied those circumstances and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. When called upon to enter into his defence, accused did not lead any evidence.
7. The learned trial court for the reasons given in para Nos. 7 to 10 of the judgment believed the story of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal.
8. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I would like to quote in extenso the reasons which have been given by the learned trial court in convicting the appellant, as follows :-
"7. The
