IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
Samey Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-1543-SB-2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on compliance with ndps provisions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court interpretations of sections 42 & 50 of ndps. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. appeal allowed, previous conviction overturned. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
The present appeal challenges the impugned judgment of conviction 13.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Panchkula, whereby, the present appellants were convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each alongwith default stipulation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2002, ASI Karan Singh alongwith other police officials was present on Bus Stand Mauli for patrolling and crime prevention on a Government vehicle and in the meantime, a secret information was received that three persons, namely, Virender son of Sadhu Ram, Samey Singh son of Badan Singh, Randhir Singh son of Nohria Singh used to bring poppy husk from village Mauli in a Fiat car bearing registration No. HR01-B-1943. If a raid was conducted huge quantity of contraband could be recovered from their car. On getting the said information, a naka was set up. In the meanwhile, a Fiat car was seen coming from Ambala and Kakrali side with high speed and on seeing the police party, the driver of the car stopped the car and started turning the car back. However, ASI Karan Singh with the help of other police officials controlled those persons and the vehicle. In the meantime, the car driver ran away from the spot, leaving behind his car and two persons were sitting on the rear seat of the car. Two persons were taken into custody and they disclosed their names and addresses as Samey Singh son of Badan Singh, resident of village Toba and Randhir Singh son of Nohria Singh, resident of Badmali District Ropar. They also disclosed that the person who had ran way from the spot was Virender @ Mintu son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. The police party raised a suspicion that accused were having contraband in their possession in the car and Jag Parvesh Dahiya, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was informed telephonically, who reached at the spot with his staff and also verified the facts and the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On the direction of Jag Parvesh Dahiya, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, search was made by ASI Karan Singh and a plastic bag was found, which was kept by both the accused on the rear seat and after taking out, the bag was opened and 35 kgs of poppy husk was found in the same. 500 grams of the poppy husk was taken out as sample from the plastic bag and the sample as well as residue quantity of the contraband were sealed separately by ASI Karan Singh with the seal impression 'KS' and the seal was handed over to ASI Kehar Singh after use. Jag Parvesh Dahiya, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, also affixed his seal impression 'JP' on the sample parcel and after use, he kept the seal with himself. Samples seals were prepared and were taken into possession by the police. Ruka was sent to the police station and on receipt of the ruka, FIR in the instant case was registered. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented against both the appellants in the competent Court. The sample sent to the FSL was analyzed by the FSL and it was found to be containing poppy straw (chura post).
3. After presentation of the challan, the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
5. EHC Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW1. On 30.04.2002, MHC Jai Singh had handed over a sealed parcel
Abdul Rashid (2000) 2 SCC 513 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 496
Directorate Of Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia
Sajan Abraham (2001) 6 SCC 692 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1217
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994(1) RCR(Cri) 736 : (1994) 3 SCC 299
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Total non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is impermissible.
Non-compliance with the recording of secret information and procedural requirements under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act can lead to the acquittal of the accused despite evidence for drug-related....
Impermissibility of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Strict compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 42, is essential to protect suspects against false implication and ensure fair investigation and trial.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja, clarifying the applicability of Sections 42 and 43, and addressing the burden of proof regarding po....
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.