IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Tagore, J.
Kashmir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 149-SB of 2014
Decided On : 22-11-2023
Judgment
Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.:- Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2013 passed by Judge Special Court, Mansa, in a Sessions case bearing No.126 of 2011, emanating from FIR No.55 dated26.12.2010, whereby appellant Kashmir Singh, has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in brevity as ‘the Act’) for keeping in his conscious possession 1kg and 10 grams intoxicant powder ‘Alprazolam’, without any permit or licence. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-), in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Prosecution case
2. The brief facts of prosecution case are as follows:
On 26.12.2010, Gurcharan Singh SI (PW-4) along with other police officials was traveling in an official vehicle, bearingNo.PB-31C-9345 driven by Pal Singh HC for patrolling duty from village Dullowal via link road to village Uddat Bhagat Ram. While the police party was one kilometer ahead of village Dullowal, they observed a person sitting on the right side of the road, carrying a plastic bag, in his hand. He was taking out some material from the polythene, on a piece of paper and making pouches. Upon noticing the police party, he appeared visibly perturbed.
On suspicion, Gurcharan Singh SI (PW-4) apprehended the said person with the help of police officials. Intoxicant powder was noticed on the fingers of his right hand, and mouth of the polythene bag was open with intoxicant powder stuck on it. When asked, the said person disclosed his name as Kashmir Singh son of Gura Singh (accused-appellant). Attempts were made to join an independent witness but nobody was available. Upon checking the polythene bag, intoxicant powder (Alprazolam) was recovered from the same.
Out of the aforementioned powder, 10 gram powder was separated and placed in a small plastic box and made into a sample parcel. Remaining powder upon weighing totaled 1 kg. The bulk powder was also packed into another parcel. Both the sample and bulk parcel were sealed by Gurcharan Singh SI (PW-4) with his seal bearing impression ‘GS’. Sample seal chit (Ex.P-1) and Form-29 were prepared separately. After its use, seal was handed over to Darshan Singh HC (PW-3). Separate memo (Ex.PF)was prepared upon taking possession of the case property. Appellant could not produce any permit or license for keeping the above said powder, the contraband, in his possession.
Ruqa (Ex.PJ) was sent for registration of a case under Section22/61/85 NDPS Act and FIR (Ex.PK) was registered. A site plan (Ex.PL)was prepared, and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested and his personal search was conducted, and memos (Ex.PG) and(Ex.PH) were prepared.
On return to the police station, Gurcharan Singh SI, presented the appellant and case property before Baghel Singh ASI, an officiating SHO, at P.S. Kot Dharmu (PW-1), who verified the case property and factsfrom the investigating officer, affixed his seal bearing impression ‘BS’ on the case property, attested sample seal chit (Ex.P-1) and Form No.29 and took the case property and prepared memo (Ex.PA), and kept the case property in his safe custody. On the next day i.e. on 27.12.2010, Baghel Singh ASI, produced case property, Form-29, inventory report (Ex.PC), appellant and moved an application (Ex.PD) before learned Magistrate, Mansa, who attested the case property and passed the order (Ex.PE) and directed to send the appellant to judicial custody. The bulk was deposited in judicial Malkhana, while the sample was retained by Baghel Singh ASI in his safe custody in police Malkhana, Police Station, Kot Dharmu. Special report (Ex.PB) was sent to area DSP.
On 05.01.2011, the sample along with sample seal chit was handed over to Jagrup Singh HC (PW-2) for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar, w
Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. State of Punjab’
Gorakh Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar’ 2018 1 RCR(Cri) 108
Hira Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another 2020(20) SCC 272
Krishan Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’ AIR 2017 SC 3751
Malkiat Singh @ Kala Vs. State of Punjab’2009 1 RCR(Cri) 353
Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab and another’
Raveen Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh’ (1999) 6 SCC 172
State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh’2005 2 RCR(Cri) 58 : 2005 1 Apex Criminal 521 (SC)
Union of India Vs. Mohanlaland another
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat’ (2011) 1 SCC 609
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially under the NDPS Act, where strict compliance with procedural safeguards is essential.
Strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act is essential for upholding the integrity of evidence in drug-related offenses.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to adhere to mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act undermines the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with statutory instructions and the need for substantial compliance with NDPS Act provisions, emphasizing the impact....
The court held that the prosecution's reliance on police witnesses is valid despite absence of independent witnesses, emphasizing that procedural defects in sample collection did not automatically in....
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.