SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
Raj Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-127-SB-2005 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Section 15 - Conviction and sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- upheld - Appellant argued violation of Section 50 regarding search; however, contraband was recovered from a bag, not personal search - No legal requirement breached - Fine enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- to be deposited in welfare fund. (Paras 1, 7, 13)

(B) Evidence - Compliance with statutory provisions - Requirement of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is linked to personal searches - Recovery conducted from an item carried by the accused mitigates necessity of the provision. (Paras 7, 11)

(C) Defence claims - Appellant's claims regarding police misconduct were unsupported by evidence - Credibility of prosecutions witnesses upheld despite lack of independent testimony. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Appellant convicted under NDPS Act for possession of 18 kgs of poppy husk recovered from a bag during police patrol. The trial court sentenced him for three years and imposed a fine. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, reduced the sentence to the time served based on the appellant's age and clean record, enhanced the fine. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: Whether the prosecution violated rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act; legitimacy of recovery process and appellant's claims of false implication. (Paras 7, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the search provisions did not apply as recovery was from a bag rather than a personal search, corroborated by official testimony, thus sustaining conviction. (Paras 7, 11)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; sentence modified to time served; fine increased.

Table of Content
1. conviction under ndps act and background of case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. witness examination and defense claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments on compliance with ndps act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. evidence credibility and witness testimonies. (Para 9 , 10)
5. sufficient evidence of guilt established. (Para 11)
6. modification of sentence based on personal circumstances. (Para 12 , 13)
7. conclusion and court orders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

Challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2004 and order of conviction dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Panchkula, whereby, the present appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, along-with the default stipulation, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

2. In short, the prosecution story is that on 28.03.2003, a police party headed by Mohinder Singh, SI/SHO was on patrolling duty near the turning of Phase I, Panchkula near Zirakpur on a government jeep, a person, namely, Rohit Sharma son of Swatantra Kumar resident of H.No. 12, Rajiv Colony, Panchkula, met them and started talking to the police party. In the meantime, another person was seen coming from the side of village Zirakpur having a plastic bag of white colour on his head. On seeing the police party, he turned back and started walking at a fast speed. Further, on finding the circumstances suspicious, he was apprehended by the police team and on inquiry by Mohinder Singh, SI/SHO, he disclosed his name and address as Raj Pal son of Mohan Singh, resident of village Gangosi, District Badayun, U.P., at present resident of village Karanpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. Since, it was suspected that he was carrying some contraband in the bag, a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him to the effect that as to whether he wanted to get his search conducted before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. On this, Raj Pal opted to be searched before a gazetted officer. On getting a wireless message from the police party, Desh Bandhu, DSP, Headquarters, Panchkula, who was a gazetted officer, reached at the spot and the police party apprised him of all the facts of the case. On the directions by the DSP, Headquarters, the search was conducted by Mohinder Singh, SI/SHO and the bag was found to be containing choora post (poppy husk). Two samples of 250 gms each were separated and the remaining quantity of the poppy husk was found to 17.500 kgs. The sample parcels as well as the residue quantity were sealed again with the seal "MS" of Mohinder Singh, SI/SHO and "DS" of Desh Bandhu, DSP, Headquarters. The seal of SI/SHO after use was handed over to Head Constable Ramesh Kumar whereas the DSP retained his seal with him. Sample seal and other sealed parcels were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos, which were attested by the DSP Headquarters. The rukka was sent for registration of the criminal case and a FIR was formally registered in the police station. The formal investigation was conducted by Mohinder Singh, SI/SHO and after necessary investigation, he also sent a report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to the senior police officers. The samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis of the contents and it was found to be containing poppy straw. Ultimately, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented to the competent Court for trial.

3. After going through the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the learned trial Court ordered framing of charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act against Raj Pal accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW1 Constable Bansi Lal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top