IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Gurpreet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S No.1607-SB of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of conviction (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against investigation flaws (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural compliance (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. lack of prosecution's evidence affects case (Para 18) |
| 5. conclusion and order of acquittal (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar in case bearing FIR No.67 dated 03.06.2014 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and vide order of sentence dated 21.10.2016 he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. In brief, the version put forth by prosecution is that on 03.06.2014, while being on patrolling duty, ASI Sawinder Singh (Investigating Officer) along with other police officials was present at Dhardeo Wadala Link Road, where police party noticed that one person, who was coming on foot from western side, got perplexed after looking at the police party and started walking briskly in opposite direction. He threw a polythene bag on the ground which he was carrying in his hand. Thereafter, ASI Sawinder Singh apprehended him on the basis of suspicion and on being asked, he disclosed his name as Gurpreet Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. Before checking that polythene bag, which was thrown by accused-Gurpreet Singh on the ground, ASI tried to join an independent witness but no one came forward. Thereafter, Gurpreet Singh opened the said polythene bag in the presence of ASI Sawinder Singh, which contained intoxicant powder. A weighing machine was arranged by ASI Sawinder Singh and after taking a sample of 10 grams from that intoxicant powder in a plastic container, which was converted into parcel, weight of remaining contraband was measured as 90 grams. The said contraband was put in another plastic container and converted into bulk parcel. Both the parcels were sealed by ASI Sawinder Singh with his seal bearing impression 'SS'. Form M-29 was also prepared at the spot and the case property was taken into possession while preparing a recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the police station through Constable Tejinder Singh on the basis of which formal FIR was registered and further investigation was started.
3. On return to the police station the entire case property was produced before officiating SHO Kuldip Singh. After verification, said SHO put the accused behind bars. Both, the sample and bulk parcel, were checked by the SHO and then he affixed his own seal bearing impression 'KS' thereon. On next day, accused was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate for authentication of the case property. Inventory as required under Section 52 -A of NDPS Act, was also prepared. On 04.06.2014, SHO Sukhwinder Singh had given both the sample and bulk parcel to ASI Sawinder Singh Investigating Officer, who deposited the same in judicial malkhana. On 09.06.2014, SI Shaminderjit Singh handed over one sample parcel of 10 gms of intoxicant powder sealed with impression 'SS' and 'KS' along with form M-29 and sample seal to HC Kuljit Singh for depositing the same to the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar, Punjab. Sample parcel was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner duly sealed with intact seal impressions 'SS' and 'KS' and thereafter report of Chemical Examiner was received, according to which, the said sample contained Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was prepared and presented in the court. As per Section 207 Cr.P.C., copies o
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratan Lal
Union of India vs. Mohanlal and another
Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and others
Malkiat Singh alias Kala Vs. State of Punjab
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh
Krishan Chand vs. State of H.P.
Gorakh Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Proper investigation and compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act are crucial in cases involving severe punishment and societal impact.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially under the NDPS Act, where strict compliance with procedural safeguards is essential.
The court affirmed that possession of contraband substances establishes statutory presumptions requiring defendants to prove lack of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub....
Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is essential for lawful searches; failure to do so renders convictions unsustainable.
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to adhere to procedural safeguards undermines convictions, particularly in cases with no independent corroboration.
Prosecution must comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act; failure to establish safe custody and proper procedures leads to acquittal.
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.
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.