SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(P&H) 805

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Jarnail Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors. - Respondent
CRM-M No. 6893 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-05-2015

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Ashu Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondents: Varun Sharma, A.A.G.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the magistrate's power to compel the police to change their opinion and the requirement of prima facie evidence for taking cognizance based on a police report.

Headnote:

N.D.P.S. Act - Untraced Report - Section 18 - [Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act] - The court discussed the acceptance of the untraced report under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, emphasizing the lack of evidence connecting any person with the act of throwing the intoxicant substance in the house of the complainant. The court also highlighted the limitations on the magistrate's power to compel the police to change their opinion and the options available to the magistrate in taking cognizance based on the police report.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the untraced report under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, alleging pressure from the police and private respondents, and attributing the contraband to certain individuals due to rivalry.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no prima facie case in favor of the petitioner at the time of acceptance of the untraced report, as no incriminating material was collected by the police, and no criminal complaint warranted cognizance by the court.

Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the untraced report, the magistrate's power in compelling the police to change their opinion, and the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of evidence connecting any person with the act of throwing the intoxicant substance, the limitations on the magistrate's power to compel the police to change their opinion, and the sparing exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the impugned order did not require any interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.:-

1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 17.12.2011 passed by Special Court, Tarn Taran, whereby untraced report submitted by the State in FIR No. 11 dated 11.01.2009, under Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Tarn Taran has been accepted.

2. Petitioner alleged that he has no antecedent record of any criminal activity. He was beaten by respondents No. 3 and 4 on 08.08.2008 and a case bearing FIR No. 76 dated 17.08.2008 under Sections325/326/324/323/148/149 IPC was registered against the aforesaid persons. The cross case got registered against the petitioner was ultimately dropped.

3. Petitioner alleged that he was under tremendous pressure of the Police at the instance of private respondents not to pursue the aforesaid case and to compromise the issue. Keeping in view the aforesaid, a raid was conducted at his house on 01.01.2009 under the pretext of recovery of some contraband. Sarpanch and other respectables of the village also came to the spot. In the search, no incriminating thing was found. Petitioner became suspicious and over apprehensive that something may not be planted in his house, therefore, after the departure of Police he along with Sarpanch and other members of the Panchayat themselves conducted a thorough search in his house and found that a polythene bag containing opium was lying under a cow dung cake.

4. Petitioner along with members of Panchayat met SSP Tarn Taran and handed over the contraband to him. Resultantly, FIR No. 11 dated 11.01.2009 was registered under Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act against unknown persons.

5. When no action was taken by the Police in the aforesaid FIR, petitioner filed CRM-M No. 15579 of 2011 for the issuance of direction to Police to present final report in the case. The Police submitted before the Court that the Investigating Agency has decided to submit an untraced report in the Court within stipulated period. In view of that petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.05.2011.

6. Police filed untraced report before the Court. Though the petitioner has submitted in the pleadings that he filed a protest petition but nothing is forthcoming except statement made by him before the Court on 29.10.2011, in which he improved his earlier version in the FIR and alleged attributability of contraband to Amritpal Singh, Darshan Singh and Gurdev Singh. The reason for such attribution was stated to be the rivalry between the groups and raid conducted by the Police was claimed to be off-shoot of such rivalry. In the FIR no such attribution was made nor anything was deposed before the Police during course of investigation when untraced report was prepared by the Police.

7. The Special Court, Tarn Taran vide order dated 17.12.2011 accepted the untraced report presented by the Police on the ground that petitioner has alleged that some intoxicant was thrown in his house by his adversaries. During course of investigation Police could not collect any evidence to connect any person with the act of throwing said intoxicant substance in the house of the complainant. On finding no connectivity between the intoxicating substance and the culprit, cancellation report was accepted.

8. In the reply submitted by respondent No. 1, categoric stand has been taken that the FIR was registered against unknown persons, petitioner did not name any suspect present at that time, nor the Police could come to know as to who had thrown the said intoxicant in the house of petitioner. Accordingly cancellation report was submitted. Reply to para No. 2 in the context of filing protest petition was that the contents of this para are matter of record.

9. Private respondents No. 2 to 4 have also filed short reply to say that the claim of the petitioner that he has no previous criminal record is factually wrong, rather petitioner was convicted in a case under Section18 of N.D.P.S., Act, bearing FIR No. 160 dated 23.07.2000, Police Station Valtoha in which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top