The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions, credibility of witness testimonies, and conscious possession of contraband in upholding the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - By this judgment, I intend to dispose of above mentioned two appeals arising out of the same judgment, passed by Judge, Special Court, Patiala in FIR No.692 dated 01.12.2000, for offences under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), registered with Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. Appeal No.CRA-S-1817-SB-2007 has been filed by appellantaccused Binder Singh whereas, appeal No.CRA-S-2281-SB-2007 has been filed by appellant-accused Mohinder Pal Singh.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per prosecution story are that on 01.12.2000, a police party from Police Station Kotwali, Patiala headed by SI Satpal Singh of CIA Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Investigating Officer/IO) while travelling in an official vehicle, was present at Modi College Chowk, Patiala in connection with checking of bad elements; there the IO received a secret information that accused Binder Singh, Mohinder Pal, Gopal Singh and Harbhajan Singh were involved in sale and purchase of poppy husk and on that day, they were bringing poppy husk for sale in Maruti 1000, having registration No.DL-5C-4169 and if a picket was laid, then huge quantity of poppy husk could be recovered from such accused; the IO sent ruqa Ex.PB to police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded.

In the meanwhile, one Sham Lal son of Jiva Lal, R/o Pinjola arrived at that place and he was joined with the police party; after some time, the Maruti 1000 car regarding which secret information had been received was spotted coming from NIS Chowk, Patiala; the IO signalled the car to stop; the driver of the car and one person sitting by his side managed to run away, whereas the other occupants of the car who were sitting on the rear seat namely Binder Singh and Mohinder Pal were apprehended by the police officials; the IO revealed his identity to Binder Singh and Mohinder Pal, accused informing them that he suspected that some contraband was being carried in the car and he wanted to search the car; he apprised both the accused about their right to get the search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; both the accused vide separate memos Ex.PC and PD opted to get the search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer; the IO sent a wireless message; accordingly, Sh. Varinder Singh, DSP (City) arrived at the spot along with his gunmen; he disclosed his identity as a Gazetted Officer to both the accused and also informed them that they had a right to be searched before any other Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, however, both the accused reposed faith in the DSP; then on direction of the DSP, IO conducted search of the car, from which two bags containing poppy husk were recovered lying in between the back seat and the driver seat, whereas, three bags containing poppy husk were recovered from dickey of the car; two samples of 250 gm each were separated from each bag and remaining poppy husk on being weighed came out to be 29.5 kg in each bag; the samples and the bags containing residue poppy husk were converted into parcels and sealed with seal having impression 'SPS' of the IO and with seal having inscription 'VS' of the DSP; specimen impression of the seal Ex.P1 was prepared; seal of IO after use was handed over to independent witness Sham Lal, whereas the DSP had retained his seal with himself.

Both the accused were accordingly arrested in this case as per rules; their jamatalashi was conducted and memos were prepared in that regard; grounds of arrest were served upon both the accused; information regarding their arrest was given to their relatives and memos were prepared in that respect; the case property was taken into police possession, vide a recovery memo; ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded; rough site plan Ex.PN of the place of recovery was prepared; report under Section 57 of the Act Ex.PO was sent