IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Jasleen Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Chandigarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S) No. 1534 of 2016
Decided On : 20-08-2019
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under Section 21 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 50(4) and the procedure for personal search of a female under the Act. It also referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmanand's case and S. K. Raju's case, highlighting the failure of the prosecution to follow proper procedure. The court also considered the defense evidence regarding call details and false implication, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove its case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of smack. The defense argued procedural irregularities and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the appeal due to procedural irregularities, failure to follow proper procedure for personal search, and the prosecution's inability to prove the case. The judgment of conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, failure to follow proper procedure for personal search, and false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the failure of the prosecution to follow proper procedure, procedural irregularities, and the defense evidence regarding false implication.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2016 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2016, passed by the trial Court, vide which the appellant was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 45 days.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, vide order dated 23.04.2016, the sentence of the appellant was suspended noticing the fact that appellant has undergone 02 months of actual sentence. Thereafter, this appeal was listed for final disposal noticing the fact that the appellant is a 28 years old unmarried girl with a stigma of conviction hanging over her.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution, are that on 04.07.2014, SI Tilak Raj along with ASI Brij Raj, HC Narinder Kumar, Lady Constable Pooja and Lady Constable Seema was patrolling in government vehicle which was being driven by Constable Harjinder Singh. At about 2.30 PM, a Naaka was laid on the dividing road of Sector 11-C, Chandigarh for checking the snatching and theft cases. At about 3.00 PM, a girl aged about 24/25 years came on foot from the side of Sector 11-C/D, Chandigarh, who, on seeing the police party, turned back and started moving fastly. On this, the police party, comprising of two lady constables namely Constable Pooja and Constable Seema and first Investigating Officer SI Tilak Raj apprehended the appellant on suspicion and with the help of lady constables, he conducted the search of a plastic bag which the appellant was carrying in her right hand and from the said bag, one polythene was recovered which was found carrying some narcotic material i.e. smack. The Investigating Officer tried to join an independent witness at the spot but no one was ready. On weighment, the narcotic substance recovered came to 10 grams, out of which, two samples of 02 grams each were separated and all were converted to parcels and then sealed with the seal bearing impression 'TJ' and the same was taken into possession. The remaining 06 grams of contraband were also converted into a sealed parcel. Ruqa was prepared and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Brij Raj. After taking possession, ruqa was sent to police station through HC Narinder Kumar for registration of the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it has come in the statement of PW-3 IO/SI Tilak Raj that after the recovery of contraband was effected, he prepared a seizure memo Ex. P-1 and then sent a ruqa Ex. P-2, which was prepared by him, to the police station through HC Narinder Kumar for registration of the FIR and thereafter, the present FIR bearing No. 293 dated 04.07.2014 Ex. P-3 was recorded.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to LCR to argue that in the seizure memo/recovery memo Ex. P-1, the complete details of the FIR No. 293 dated 04.07.2014 are given. Learned counsel for the appellant has, thus, argued that admittedly after preparing this document, the ruqa was prepared giving all the details as mentioned in this seizure memo Ex. P-1 and the same was sent to police station, which was received in the police station by SI/SHO Rambir Singh at 4.44 PM and after making endorsement, the FIR was registered.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to cross-examination of PW-3 IO/SI Tilak Raj, wherein he has stated as under:
"......I had already prepared seizure memo of recovery, CFSL from, ruqa which I had already sent for FIR. I have seen ruqa Exhibit P2, at point A, which is the entry of FIR with the different pen in respect of the time 4:44 pm by SI Rambir Singh at the registration of FIR. It is correct that FIR number detail is mentioned in Exhibit P1. Voluntary said it was filled by the
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.