IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, J.
Parkash Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 496-SB of 2005
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under Section 15 - 1985 Act - [Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act] - [Section 15] - The court discussed the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the significance of independent witnesses, and the mentioning of FIR number in the consent memos. It emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 50 and suggested proactive measures for robust investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of poppy-husk. The appellant challenged the conviction citing discrepancies in testimonies and documents, false implication, and violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the appellant's plea regarding violation of Section 50, absence of independent witnesses, and mentioning of FIR number in the consent memos. It emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 50 and suggested proactive measures for robust investigation. The court upheld the conviction.
Issues: Discrepancies in testimonies and documents, false implication, violation of Section 50, absence of independent witnesses, leniency in conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the significance of independent witnesses, and the need for proactive measures in investigation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) - The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') in case FIR No.124 dated 20th of June, 2003, registered at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2500/-. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months.
2. As per the prosecution, truck bearing registration No.PB-04-B-9884 driven by the appellant was intercepted at Naka. On checking of the truck it was found that one bag of white colour was lying behind the driver's seat. In terms of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, appellant was offered to exercise his option to get the search conducted in presence of Investigating Officer or the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Appellant opted to get the search conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer. Memo Exhibit PC was prepared. Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Gazetted Officer was called. Gazetted Officer disclosed his identity to the accused and again gave accused offer to get the search conducted in his presence or in the presence of some other Gazetted Officer, or Magistrate. It is claimed that the accused reposed faith in the Deputy Superintendent of Police and signed memo Exhibit P-D. Truck was searched. From the plastic bag poppy-husk weighing 12 kgs. 200 grams was recovered. Sample and bulk parcels were drawn. From the personal search of the accused currency notes amounting to Rs.11080/- were recovered. Regarding this separate recovery memo was drawn. Sealed parcels of the contraband recovered were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate in compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Trial Court after considering the evidence on record held the appellant guilty of being in conscious possession of a narcotic substance i.e. poppy-husk weighing 12 kgs. 200 grams and, thus, held him guilty of offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and awarded him sentence as mentioned hereinabove.
3. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellant has taken this Court through the testimony of PW-3 SI Joga Singh, PW-6 DSP (HQ.) Hatinder Singh and that of PW-7 Inspector Chhaju Ram-the Investigating Officer to submit that there are major discrepancies w.r.t. the time of accused being intercepted at the Naka, mode by way of which Gazetted Officer was called and w.r.t. source of weights and measures. He further submits that apart from major discrepancies in the oral testimonies of the material witnesses there are material discrepancies even in the written documents. He claims that when a consent memo Exhibit PC is compared with the Ruqa Exhibit P-J both authored by IO Chhaju Ram, it is a clear case of false implication. While recording consent memo Exhibit PC, it is recorded that an offer was given to the accused to get him himself searched by Investigating Officer or by the Gazetted Officer or by the Magistrate whereas in the Ruqa recorded on the same day and probably at the same time it has been stated that the IO offered the appellant to get himself searched by the IO or by some Gazetted Officer. Apart from this he also submits that bare perusal of the consent memos recorded at the time of search and seizure would indicate that the same bear FIR number. The argument raised is that the mentioning of FIR number even prior to registration of FIR itself would be a circumstance to raise doubt w.r.t. the investigation carried out by the agencies. He submits that it shows that even prior to search, the Investigating Authorities were sure that the contraband will be recovered leading to registration of FIR which clearly points towards false implication of the appellant at the hands of the agencies. In support of his con
Ajay Malik vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh
Didar Singh @ Dara vs. State of Punjab
Myla Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. (2012) 5 SCC 226
AI
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is crucial, and there is a need for more proactive and robust investigation procedures to prevent false implications and ensure the conviction of the real c....
The authenticity of documents and compliance with legal provisions, along with the substantial custody of the accused and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, are crucial factors in granting bail.
Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is essential for lawful searches; failure to do so renders convictions unsustainable.
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery from clothing; combined with procedural doubts and contradictions, mandat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the requirement of strict compliance with the provision, particularly in communicating the r....
Strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving the seizure and disposal of contraband, is crucial to establish the integrity of the evidence and 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.