IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Jugal Kishore - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 807 of 2016
Decided On : 28-05-2019
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 18 - Section 50 compliance not mandatory for bag search - Key legal provisions interpreted by the court: Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 - The court held that Section 50 compliance is not mandatory when the search is made from a bag carried by the accused. The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments to support its interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possession of opium. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of opium from a bag carried by the accused. The accused denied the charges, and the case proceeded to trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of police officials and the FSL report confirming the contents of the recovered substance. The court dismissed the defense witnesses' testimony, noting inconsistencies and lack of credibility.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense raised the issue of violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, arguing that the search of the bag was not conducted in compliance with the provision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which the court held is not mandatory for bag searches. The court also emphasized the importance of official witnesses' testimony and the FSL report in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This appeal is instituted against judgment and order dated 19.08.2016 rendered by Special Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in Sessions Case No.62 of 2015 whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years, for offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act.
2. Xxx xxx xxx
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 24.12.2014 Inspector Om Parkash, Incharge, Narcotic Cell, Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with other police officials, reached near Dera Radha Swami. One Balwant Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh met the police party. When the police party reached near bus stand of village Barkandi, then accused carrying a black colour bag on his right shoulder was seen standing. He got perplexed. He immediately entered into the bus stop. He was apprehended. He disclosed his identity. Accused was apprised about his legal right of search in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. Accused shown his willingness to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. Thereafter DSP Kanwalpreet Singh Chahal was called. He also apprised about his legal right of search. Accused reposed faith in him. Consent memo was prepared. Bag was searched. The bag contained opium. It was weighed on computer scale. 10 grams was separated as sample. Remaining bulk weighing 3.490 kgs. was converted into bulk parcel. Form M29 was filled on the spot. Case property was taken into possession. Case property was produced before the SHO SI Iqbal Singh. He verified the facts. He put his seal. The case property was sent for chemical examination. Challan was put up after receipt of chemical examiner's report and completion of all the codal formalities.
4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of prosecution. The accused also examined two witnesses in his defence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence the appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the prosecution case.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.
8. Pw-1 SI Iqbal Singh testified that he received ruqa Ex.PA written by Inspector Om Parkash. He registered FIR Ex.PB. He sent special report to the higher officers. Accused Jugal Kishore as well as case property were produced before him. Bulk parcel and sample parcel were duly sealed with seal bearing impression 'OP' and 'KS'. He interrogated the accused. He verified the facts of the case. He put his seal bearing impression 'IS' on the parcels. Case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE. He directed ASI Surinder Singh to produce the accused along with entire case property in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate vide DDR No.4 dated 25.12.2014 Ex.PJ.
9. Pw-2 HC Jarnail Singh led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PW2/A. According to his affidavit, on 01.01.2015, MHC Sukhwinderpal Singh handed over to him one sample parcel of opium. He obtained the docket from the office of SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib. He deposited the case property in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Phase-4, Mohali.
10. Pw-3 HC Sukhwinderpal Singh also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PW3/A. According to the contents of affidavit, ASI Surinder Singh had deposited the case property, one sample parcel of small plastic box of 10 grams opium sealed with seal OP+KS+IS, one additional sample parcel of opium of 10 grams duly sealed with seal M
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.