IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Swaroop Singh – Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. S-662-SB of 2005
Decided On: 01.10.2013
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under Section 15 - 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as the mandatory provisions of Section 42 and Section 50. The court highlighted the importance of strict adherence to the safeguards provided by the Act, and emphasized that non-compliance with these provisions could cause sufficient doubt, leading to the benefit of the doubt going to the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on a raid conducted on the basis of secret information. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of poppy straw from the appellant's house, but discrepancies and non-compliance with procedural requirements were raised by the appellant's counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was doubtful due to discrepancies in witness statements, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and lack of explanation for delays in sending samples for analysis. The court emphasized the stringent punishment under the Act and the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant based on the benefit of the doubt.
Issues: The issues raised included non-compliance with procedural requirements, discrepancies in witness statements, and doubts regarding the recovery of poppy straw from the appellant's house.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the doubt cast on the prosecution's case due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, discrepancies in witness statements, and lack of explanation for delays in sending samples for analysis. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards and the benefit of the doubt going to the accused.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the bail/surety bonds, if any furnished, were discharged. The appellant, who was already on bail, had his sentence suspended by the Court.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by appellant-Sawroop Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period often years and to pay a fine of one lac and in case of default of non-payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The said judgment dated 01.03.2005 is a subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 15.06.1999, Sub Inspector Gurcharan Singh along with some other police officials was on official duty. A secret information was received that the appellant-Sawroop Singh was dealing in poppy straw at a large scale at Village Sardarewala and in case, a raid is conducted, the same can be recovered from him. An information Exhibit PD was reduced into writing and the same was sent to police station, Ratia for registration of case and F.I.R. was registered as Exhibit PG/1. The police, party reached the Village Sardarewala and after associating with one Surinder Singh, reached the house of Sawroop Singh. Appellant-Sawroop Singh made a disclosure statement Exhibit PD/1 and stated that he had kept eight gunny bags containing crushed poppy straw concealed in his room underneath wheal straw under lock and key. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer prepared memo Exhibit PE and an option was given to the accused to get the search made either in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused gave his option to be searched in the presence of gazetted officer. Deputy Superintendent of Police-Swaran Singh reached the house of the accused after getting information. The room was opened in his presence and eight gunny bags containing poppy straw were found from there. On weighing, each gunny bag was found containing 40 kgs. of poppy straw. A sample of 100 grams was separated from each gunny bag and was converted into eight parcels which were sealed with the seal of 'SS. The remainder poppy straw was also scaled in the same gunny bags with seal of 'SS and the seal was handed over to witness Surinder Singh. The case property was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and the accused was arrested. The case properly and the accused were brought by the Investigating Officer to the police station Ratia and were produced before Sub Inspector Ramesh Kumar, S.H.O. Police Station, Ratia. The case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable and the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for analysis which were found to be poppy straw. After investigation, the challan was filed in the Court against the accused appellant and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 04.01.2000. The appellant was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Head Constable Tarsem Singh appeared as P.W.1, Ramesh Kumar-S.I. as P.W.2, Inder Singh-Constable as P.W.3, Sawaran Singh-D.S.P. as P.W.-4, Sukhbir Singh-HC as P.W.-5 and Gurcharan Singh-Investigating Officer as P.W.-6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, he has pleaded his innocence by stating that nothing was recovered from his possession and he has falsely been implicated. In defence evidence, the accused examined Nimbu Singh-Chowkidar as D.W.-1 and Constable Suraj Bhan as D.W.-2.
3. On appreciation of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced for a period of ten years with a default clause along with
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.