Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the reliability of evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Puri, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2004 and order of sentence of even date passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which the appellants were convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. However, one of the co-accused, namely, Major Singh was acquitted.

2. The facts as put forth by the prosecution are to the effect that on 28.01.2002, S.I.Nand Lal alongwith fellow police officials were present at the canal bridge on Surtia-Rori road, where he received a secret information to the effect that the accused are selling poppy straw in a vehicle bearing registration number GUD-4997 on a 'kacha path' at Rori- Jatana road and they can be apprehended if raid is conducted. Accordingly, a raid was conducted and the accused were found sitting in the jeep bearing registration number GUD-4997 at the aforesaid place. Major Singh, coaccused of the appellants, managed to slip away, whereas, the appellants were apprehend at the spot. They were found sitting upon two bags kept in the said jeep. Notices under Section 50 of the Act were served upon them but the appellants reposed faith upon the police officials. The search of the bags led to the recovery of poppy straw. One bag was containing 39 kg of poppy straw and the second bag was containing 36 kg of poppy straw. Two samples weighing 100 grams each were separated from each bag. The sample parcels and the bulk parcels were converted into separate parcels and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'CS'. The jeep alongwith weighing scale, two weights of 500 grams each were also recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memos. Ruqa was recorded and dispatched to the police station on the basis thereof, the FIR was registered. Subsequently, Major Singh, co-accused, was arrested. and on completion of investigation, the challan the presented in the Court.

3. The charge was framed. The contents thereof were read over and explained to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its allegations, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. Inspector Nand Lal (PW4) has conducted the search of the accused in the presence of ASI Jaswant Singh (PW3). The case property was retained in the malkhana by Kuldeep Singh (PW2) and Constable Gurjit Singh (PW1) took the sample parcels to the FSL. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence to substantiate the version as put forth by it.

5. The statements of accused under Section Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and they have alleged false implication. The defence version put forth by appellants-Boota Singh and Gurmohinder Singh is to the effect that they were taken from their house in the presence of Gurmail Singh. The defence version of appellant-Gurdeep Singh is to the effect that he was taken from his house by the police in the presence of Darbara Singh.

6. The appellants-accused have examined Rajbir Singh (DW1), who has deposed with regard to the registration of two other FIRs i.e. FIR No. 16 dated 07.02.2002 and FIR No. 17 dated 08.02.2002 pertaining of offence under the Act at police Station Rori. Constable Dharamvir Singh (DW4) has deposed from the log book of the vehicle of the police party. Gurmail Singh (DW2) and Sardara Singh (DW3) have testified with regard to the false implication of the accused on account of political rivalry.

7. Vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2004, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in para No.1 of this judgment.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

9