Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.B.Garg and P.K.Jain JJ.
Roop Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1993,
Decided On : MARCH 30, 1995
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 50, 52, 54, 55 - POSSESSION OF NARCOTIC DRUG - CONSCIOUS POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS - EVIDENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS - CORROBORATION - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - ADVERSE INFERENCE - DEFENCE PLEA - RELIABILITY - SENTENCE - REDUCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was caught driving a truck loaded with 100 bags of poppy husk, a narcotic drug. He was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act) and sentenced to 15 days of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. His co-accused, who was his brother, was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant, finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the appellant was in conscious possession of the narcotic drug, as he was driving the truck in which it was found. The court also found that there was no need for corroboration of the police officers' testimony, as there was intrinsic circumstantial evidence to support it.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Sections 50, 52, and 55 of the Act were complied with during the search and seizure of the narcotic drug. 2. Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession of the narcotic drug by the appellant. 3. Whether the evidence of the police officers required corroboration. 4. Whether the defence plea raised by the appellant was reliable. 5. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Sections 50, 52, and 55 of the Act were complied with. The search of the truck was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer, as required by Section 50. The grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant orally, as required by Section 52. The samples of the narcotic drug were sealed and sent for analysis, as required by Section 55. 2. The court held that the prosecution proved conscious possession of the narcotic drug by the appellant. The appellant was driving the truck in which the narcotic drug was found, and he did not offer any explanation for its presence. 3. The court held that the evidence of the police officers did not require corroboration. There was intrinsic circumstantial evidence to support their testimony, such as the fact that the appellant was caught red-handed and that the narcotic drug was found in the truck he was driving. 4. The court held that the defence plea raised by the appellant was not reliable. The appellant claimed that the truck had been seized by the police prior to the alleged offence and that the narcotic drug had been planted on him. However, there was no evidence to support this claim. 5. The court held that the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive. The court reduced the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced his sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
P.K.Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated September 28, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five years. His co-accused and real brother Avtar Singh has been aquitted on account of his identity having been not established.
2. The prosecution case is that on 25.7.1990, S.I. Bikramjit Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Sherpur (P.W. 2), along with other police officials, was holding a naka on the bridge over the canal drain in the area of village Mahmadpur. One Nirbhai Singh of village Poorgarh, while coming from the side of village Kuthala, joined them. At about 9.45 p.m., a truck bearing registration No. PUL-9965, came from the side of village Mahmadpur. On a signal given by S.I. Bikramjit Singh (P.W.2), the truck was stopped. The appellant was on the wheel of the truck, his co-accused Avtar Singh jumped out of the truck from its left side and escaped under the cover of darkness. S.I. Bikramjit Singh told the appellant that he had a suspicion that the bags loaded inside the truck contained poppy husk and that he wanted to conduct personal search as well as the search of the truck. He also gve an offer to the appellant, if wanted, the said search could be conducted before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, on which the appellant expressed his desire to be searched before a gazetted officer. On wireless message, Shri Durga Dass, D.S.P. (now deceased) reached the spot and made neccessary enquiries from the appellant. Thereafter S.I. Bikramjit Singh conducted search of the said truck which was found to be loaded with 100 bags. These bags were found to contain poppy husk, each weighing 40 Kgs. Two samples weighing 250 grams each were separated from each of the 100 bags. The samples and all the gunny bags containing the remaing poppy husk were then sealed by the said Sub- Inspector with his own seal. The sealed samples and the gunny bags along with the tarpaulin, a rope and the truck were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PA which was attested by Shri Durga Dutta, D.S.P. also. Specimen of the seal was prepared separately and the seal after use was handed over to A.S.I. Swarn Singh, a member of the Police party. Ruqa Exhibit PB was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR-Exhibit PB/1 was recorded. Case property was deposited with the M.H.C. On enquiry from the appellant, the name and whereabouts of his co-accused Avtar Singh were revealed. The said co-accused has surrended on 7.9.1990 before the Court of the Judcial Magistrate and he was arrested in the present case on 8.9.1990. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and the report-Exhibit PD was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. The prosecution examined A.S.I.Swaran Singh (P.W. 1), S.I. Bikramjit Singh (P.W. 2) regarding the main occurrence, Constable Narinder Singh (P.W. 3), who had carried the sample parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigargh and H.C. Gurnam Singh, with whom the case property was deposited in the malkhana and who had despatched one set of the sample parcels through Constable Narinder Singh to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh.
4. In their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated. According to the appellant, he was arrested by the police at Sherpur on 22.7.1990 and was kept in illegal custody till 26.7.1990. He then stated that he had parked this truck in the house of his relation Major Singh, son of Kartar Singh of village Burajkalaran and a D.S.P. had ra
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
