Narcotics--Personal Search--Constable who conducted the search was not examined by the prosecution as a witness--Accused acquitted - Narcotics--Delay of 7 days in sending samples--Accused acquitted

JUDGMENT

Mr. H. Arnaresh Singh Gill, J.:- The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 17.2.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Tract Court, Amritsar vide which appellant Paramjit Kaur alias Pammi had been convicted under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (‘1985 Act’ for short) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.3.2010, the police party was going to Anngarh in connection with patrolling duty and checking of anti social elements. They saw one lady carrying a polythene carry bag in her hand and on seeing the police party, she tried to run away towards her house. The appellant-accused was apprehended by the police officials including lady Constable-Satwinder Kaur and she had disclosed her name as Paramjit Kaur. The polythene envelope was checked and it was found to contain 15 injections of Amin 10 ML and 15 injections of Bonorwin 2 ML. These injections were put in a plastic container and made into two parcels. The parcels were sealed with seal bearing impression ‘AS’. Seal after use was handed over to HC Wilson Masih. Accused was arrested. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which, formal FIR was registered. The parcels and sample seal impressions were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was received that sample contained Pheniramine Maleate average 22.50 ml. and Buprenorphine hydrochloride average of 0.28 ml.

3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was submitted against the the appellant.

4. Charge under Sections 22 of the 1985 Act was framed against the appellant.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) wherein she denied correctness of incriminating evidence appearing against her and pleaded false implication.

7. The appellant, however, did not examine any witness in her defence.

8. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment/order dated 17.2.2014, has concluded that the contraband which was recovered from the appellant, was of commercial quantity and, thus, as noticed above, she was convicted under Section 22 of the 1985 Act and sentenced accordingly.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record of the Court below.

10. Learned legal aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in the present case, provisions of Section 50 of the 1985 Act have not been complied with. It has been further argued that SI Amrik Singh had appeared as PW-2 and stated that one lady was seen coming in the Street No. 3, Anngarh and on seeing the policy party, she had turned back. She was carrying a polythene carry bag in her right hand. She was apprehended by him (Amrik Singh) with the help of lady Constable Satwinder Kaur. On enquiry, she disclosed her name as Paramjit Kaur alias Pammi wife of Chand Singh. Lady Constable Satwinder Kaur took the polythene carry bag from her hand and handed over the same to him (PW-2). On checking, the polythene carry bag, held by the appellant in her right hand, it was found containing 15 injections of Amin 10 ML and 15 injections of Bonorwin 2 ML each. Thereafter, these injections were put into a plastic container and made into two different parcels and the parcels were sealed by him (PW-2). Thereafter personal search was also conducted by the police party. Learned counsel has also pointed out that Ex.P-3 is the search memo which clearly indicates that the appellant was not searched personally.

11. On t