SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RECOVERY of 21 bags of poppy husk, each weighing 40 Kgs. from a house is attributed to the appellant, which has led to his trial, conviction and sentence of 10 years RI coupled with fine of Rs. one lac for having committed an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Aggrieved against his conviction and award of sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) ON 29.11.1999, a police party consisting of SI Ujjagar Singh of CIA Staff (PW8) and SI Jaipal Singh (PW9) and other constables were on a patrolling duty, when PW8 and PW9 received a secret information to the effect that appellant Sukhdev Singh son of Hajura Singh, resident of Palsar was indulging in sale of poppy husk and was having sufficient quantity lying in his house and that if the house was raided, a large quantity of poppy husk could be recovered. The police party, as aforementioned, reached house of one Raghbir Singh Bhoria, Tehsildar, Ratia. SI Ujjagar Singh (PW8) disclosed the secret information received as afore-mentioned and asked him to join the raiding party. He agreed and went with the police party. The raiding party accordingly reached Village Palsar and met Gurjant Singh, Sarpanch of the village. Secret information was then shared with him and he was taken along for conducting raid. The raiding party reached the house of the appellant, who was found present there. Upon a search of the house, 21 bags of poppy husk were found lying in a room near the eastern wall. On weighment, each bag was found weighing 40 Kgs. 100 grams sample was taken from every bag and the residue quantity sealed with the seal 'RS'. The contraband recovered was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE. The seal after use was given to Tehsildar Raghbir Singh Bhoria. Ruqa, Ex.PC, was sent to Police Station, leading to registration of a formal FIR, Ex.PC/1. The case property was produced before SI Hardev Singh (PW4) and report was also forwarded to DSP. SI Hardev Singh put his seal 'HS' on the case property and directed that it be deposited in MHC. The appellant was taken in custody. The samples were sent to FSL and report revealed that it was poppy husk. Thus the prosecution, trial and conviction of the appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has raised number of pleas in support of his stand and has prayed for allowing the appeal and setting-aside of the conviction of the appellant. He would first contend that the case would reflect violation of Section 42 of the Act as the secret information, which led to raiding the alleged residential premises of the appellant was never reduced into writing. The information in this regard was also not sent to superior officer, as required under the said Section. The counsel would further contend that prosecution failed to prove the recovery of contraband from the conscious possession of the appellant. In this regard, he would mainly submit that there is no evidence on record that the house from which this contraband was recovered belonged to the appellant. The contention is that even if the appellant was arrested from the house, it would not mean that the contraband was in his conscious possession, unless it was established that the house was owned or possessed by him exclusively. He would also urge that presence of Gazetted Officer is highly doubtful besides raising the plea that no independent witness has appeared to support the recovery. As per the counsel, the link evidence is totally missing in this case.