The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the requirement for strict compliance with procedural provisions.

JUDGMENT

Jitendra Chauhan, J. - CRM No. 23568 of 2019

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed as prayed for.

Main case

3. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.12.2018 passed by Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran, vide which the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charge in FIR No.477 dated 27.12.2014 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 at Police Station City Tarn Taran.

4. The brief facts of the case as noticed in the judgment passed by the trial Court in paragraph No. 2 are reproduced as under:-

"2. Tersely put, the case of prosecution is that on 27.12.2014 at about06.10 PM in the area of railway track Jandiala road, Tarn Taran, accused Gurpreet was found in conscious possession of 300 grams intoxicant powder containing salt "Diacetylmorphine" and without any license or permit by the police party headed by SI Amarjit Singh and consisted of ASI Lakhwinder Singh and other police officials were going from police post bus stand, Tarn Taran towards focal point, Mohalla Gokhalpura etc. On receipt of report from Chemical Examiner, Kharar and after the completion of all other necessary formalities of the investigation, the accused were challaned for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 22/61/85 of the Act."

5. After completion of investigation, challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court.

6. Charges under Section 22 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined PW-1 SI Amarjit Singh, PW-2 ASI Lakhwinder Singh, PW-3 HC Satnam Singh and PW-4 Inspector Nirmal Singh, SHO and closed the evidence.

8. The statement of accused Laddi under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused to which the accused denied and pleaded false implication.

9. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.

10. After appraisal of evidence, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018, acquitted accused/respondent of the charges framed against him.

11. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab.

12. It is contended by the learned State counsel that accused-respondent was found in conscious possession of the intoxicant powder which was found to be Diacetylmorphine. The accused was caught on the spot and there is presumption that the accused was in conscious possession of narcotic substance. The prosecution had proved on record that the sealed parcels of the case property were intact. Recovery of 300 gms of intoxicant powder containing Diacetylmorphine was effected from the conscious possession of the accused.

13. We have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the case file very carefully.

14. The learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent on the following grounds :-

1. The provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with as the recovery was effected from the right hand of the accused.

2. No independent witness was joined. No action was taken against those who refused to join as witness.

3.The provisions of Sections 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with.

4. There was delay of 18 days i sending the sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner at Khara.

15. We have gone through the case file carefully and find that the judgment of acquittal has been rightly passed in the given set of facts. Though, it is a case of recovery of 300 gms of intoxicating powder from the accused but there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The recovery was allegedly effected from the right hand of the accused but still no valid offer of personal search before a Gazetted Officer