IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 1185-SB of 2006
Decided On : 22-01-2024
NDPS Act - Violation of Section 42 and 52-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 15 of NDPS Act - Summary: The court discussed the violation of Section 42 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, highlighting the mandatory provisions and their interpretations. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the statutory provisions and the consequences of non-compliance in the context of the NDPS Act. The court referred to relevant judgments and their implications on the present case, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 15 of NDPS Act for possession of poppy husk. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of the contraband and the subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, leading to doubts about the integrity of the evidence and the case against the appellant. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant of the charge.
Issues: Violation of Section 42 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, Compliance with statutory provisions, Integrity of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving the seizure and disposal of contraband. Non-compliance with these provisions raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence and the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Judgment
Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2005 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 15 of NDPS Act in criminal case having FIR No.120 dated 4.11.2003 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, Police Station Goindwal Sahib by the Court of Judge, Special Court, Amritsar.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 4.11.2003, the police party headed by PW4-ASI Jatinderjit Singh was on patrolling duty and the said police official received a secret information that the appellant was indulging in sale and purchase of poppy husk in the area of his village Khawaspur and if raid is conducted at the house of the appellant, he could be apprehended along with large quantity of poppy husk. Independent witness Inderjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh was associated in the police party and then they raided the house of the appellant. At that time, the appellant was found sitting on two gunny bags in the Courtyard of his house and he was sewing the mouth of the gunny bags. PW4-ASI Jatinderjit Singh apprised the appellant that he was suspected to be possessing poppy husk in gunny bags and further informed the appellant of his legal right to get effect search before him or some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. On this, the appellant told the said police official that search of bags be conducted by some Gazetted Officer and to this effect, non-consent memo Ex.PC was reduced into writing which was thumb marked by the appellant and attested by HC Harjinder Singh and independent witness Inderjit Singh. PW4-Jatinderjit Singh sent wireless message to PW2-Jaswinder Singh DSP, Halqa Goindwal Sahib who reached the spot and disclosed his identity as a Gazetted Police Officer to the appellant and the appellant reposed confidence in him vide consent memo Ex.PA which was thumb marked by the appellant and attested by the aforesaid witnesses and was also signed by PW2-Jaswinder Singh DSP. Then under the supervision of PW2, search of two gunny bags was conducted by PW4 and poppy husk was found in both the bags. Two samples of 250 grams each of poppy husk were separated from each bag and the remaining bulk of poppy husk on weighment in each bag came out to be 39 kg 500 grams. The aforesaid 4 samples and the remaining bulk contained in two gunny bags were converted into 6 separate parcels which were sealed by PW2-Jaswinder Singh-DSP with his seal bearing impression ‘JS’ and also by PW4-ASI Jatinderjit Singh with his separate seal bearing impression ‘JS’. Separate sample seal impressions were also prepared and after use, PW2 kept his seal with himself while PW4 handed over his seal to HC Harjinder Singh. The entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB which was also attested by the aforesaid witnesses. PW4 prepared ruka Ex.PD and dispatched the same to Police Station, upon the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PD/1 was registered in Police Station by MHC Jaspal Singh. PW4 also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery and the accused was formerly arrested vide memo Ex.PF and statement of PWs were also recorded. On return to the police station, PW4 produced the accused and the entire case property before PW3-SI/SHO Dalbir Singh who after verifying the facts of the case, appended his seal bearing impression ‘DS’ on the entire case property and then the case property was deposited in a double lock while the appellant was sent to police lock up. On the next day, the accused and the entire case property was produced before Illaqa Magistrate who after checking the case property, signed the same and on return to the police station, the case property was again kept in a double lock. Sealed sample parcels were sent for their analysis to the office of Chemical Examiner
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana
Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana
Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana
Dharamvir Parshad v. State of Bihar
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 ....
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and contradictions in evidence undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, notably Section 52A, is essential to validate convictions; failure to produce seized contraband is fatal to the prosecution's case.
The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.
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.