The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair investigation, compliance with procedural safeguards, and avoidance of bias in the investigation process.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The above mentioned two appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2014 passed by Special Court (A), Gurdaspur, in FIR No. 116 dated 18.08.2007, under Section 15-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), registered at Police Station Ghoman, District Batala, Punjab, vide which the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2007, SI/SHO Makhan Singh (investigating officer) along with other police officials was patrolling the area of canal bridge Athwal where he received a secret information to the effect that Sukhwinder Singh alias Billa, Arjun Singh alias Marra and Manohar Lal were indulging in the sale of poppy husk and other intoxicants. At that time they were sitting on the bags of poppy husk near Mogha Drain Distributary, village Mehmadpur on the canal bridge waiting for a vehicle and if a raid was conducted, they could be apprehended. This information was passed on to Ajaib Singh DSP, Qadian on his mobile phone by the investigating officer and he was requested to reach the spot. Thereafter the investigating officer raided the disclosed place and found three persons sitting on six bags. On seeing the police party, they tried to run away but were nabbed with the help of police officials. On interrogation they disclosed their names as mentioned above. They were told that there was a suspicion of their being in possession of poppy husk and some intoxicants and were required to be searched. They were made aware of their legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. They showed their willingness to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. Dissent memos were prepared. DSP, Qadian came to the spot and conducted the search after disclosing his identity and getting the consent of the aforesaid persons. On the asking of DSP, Qadian, the investigating officer opened the six bags from which poppy husk was recovered. Out of the recovered bags, five were weighed as 24 3/4 kg each and one bag weighed as 193/4 kg. In total 145 kg of poppy husk was recovered. Samples were taken and sealed with the seals bearing impression ‘MS’ and ‘AS’. The case property was taken into possession. A written information/ruqa was sent to the police station through Constable Harjinder Singh on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Accused were arrested at the spot. After completing all the formalities of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in Court.

3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. charge was framed against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act, to which all the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and its evidence was closed after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PX).

5. Accused in their defence examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Amrik Singh and closed their evidence.

6. After hearing arguments of both sides and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as discussed above.

CONTENTIONS

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of the Court towards the shortcomings in the case of the prosecution. He has argued that the secret information allegedly received by the investigating officer was not reduced into writing as mandated under Section 42 of the Act and this fact has been admitted by the prosecution. As per counsel, recovery of contraband has been