IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Tagore, J.
Parveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 1424-SB of 2016
Decided On : 08-12-2023
Judgment
Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2016/10.03.2016 passed by Judge, Special Court, Pathankot, convicting the appellant-accused under Section 22 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay fine Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Facts of prosecution are that on 01.01.2015, police party headed by Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5), apprehended accused-appellant, in the area of Gowshalla Turning Point, Pathankot, suspecting his conduct, as on seeing police party, he took out one plastic packet (lifafa) from pocket of his pant and threw it on the ground.
3. On checking the polythene packet (lifafa), some intoxicant powder was recovered. Two samples each weighing 10 grams were separated and converted into two parcels. Remaining contraband was weighed and found to be 100 grams, which was put into the third parcel. All the parcels were sealed by ASI Surjit Raj with his seal bearing impression ‘SR’. Sample (Ex.P-1) of his seal was also prepared by him on Form M-29 (Ex.PX) and, thereafter, he handed over his seal to PHC Pawan Kumar (PW-2). Seizure memo (Ex.PW-2/A) was prepared.
4. Ruqa (Ex.PW-5/A) was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.PW-5/B as mentioned in the judgment) under Sections 21/22 of the Act was registered. Arrest-cum-intimation memo (Ex.PW-2/B), personal search memo (Ex.PW-2/C) and site plan (Ex.PW-5/C) were prepared at the spot.
5. Thereafter, the accused along with the case property was produced before SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1), who affixed his seal bearing impression ‘SS’ on the case property and prepared sample (Ex.P-2) of his seal on CFSL Form (Ex.PX). He also prepared handing over case property memo (Ex.PW-1/A).
6. On the next day, ASI Surjit Raj, (PW-5) produced case property before the Magistrate by submitting inventory report (Ex.PW-1/B) and application (Ex.PW-1/C), who passed authentication order (Ex.PW-5/D). Thereafter, the case property was deposited with SHO Sukhjinder Singh. Sample parcels along with sample seal were sent for chemical examination. Report (Ex.PZ) was sent by Chemical Examiner, which reflected Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance in the recovered contraband. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, Challan was presented in trial Court against the accused-appellant.
7. After making due compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge under Section 22 (c) of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. To prove the charge against the appellant-accused, prosecution examined ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5), the investigating officer, HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2), recovery witness. Both of them described the entire incident leading to recovery of 120 grams of contraband from the possession of the appellant-accused. SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1) deposed about presenting the case property and appellant-accused before him for verification and authentication of the recovery proceedings and sealing of case property with his seal bearing impressions ‘SS’, and, thereafter deposit of case property in Malkhana and sending the sample parcels along with sample seal to the office of chemical examiner for analysis . HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2) further deposed that he deposited the sample parcel in the office of Chemical Examiner in intact condition. PHC Balwinder Kumar (PW-3) deposed that he handed over the special reports of this case to the Magistrate and higher police officers. PHC Gurdip Singh (PW-4) deposed that on 06.01.2015, he could not deposit sample parcel in the office of the Chemical Examiner due to leave of the concerned Clerk and re-deposited the sample parcel with SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1) on same day.
9. In statement under Section 313 Cr
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 its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially under the NDPS Act, where strict compliance with procedural safeguards is essential.
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....
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.