HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J - (1.) THIS appeal against acquittal arises out of the following facts :- At about 6.15 P.M. on April 20, 1991, a police party headed by Inspector Sant Kumar, SHO of Police Station, Sahnewal and comprising of ASI Atma Singh, ASI Satnam Singh and some others including Pritam Singh PW was holding a nakabandi on the canal bridge of village Tibba when a truck bearing registration No. CHW 5766 came from the side of village Dehlon. The truck was stopped on suspicion and it was found that it was being driven by accused Tariok Kumar and accused Kuldeep Singh was sitting besides him. Inspector Sant Kumar told the accused that he was to conduct a search of the truck and if they wanted, the same could be made before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, as envisaged under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The accused declined the offer and stated that they had full confidence in him. The truck was accordingly searched and 30 bags of poppy husk each weighing about 40 kgs. were recovered. The accused were thereafter arrested and samples from each bag were taken for being sent to the chemical examiner whereas the rest of the poppy husk was sealed and taken into possession. The report of the laboratory was subsequently received wherein it was opined that the samples were of poppy husk. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.
(2.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Constable Sardul Singh, who proved his affidavit, Exh.PA, in which he had deposed that he had been handed over 30 parcels of the samples on April 25, 1991 and he had deposited the same in the Laboratory at Chandigarh on April 26, 1991; PW-2 Gurdip Singh, a Clerk from the office of DTO, Kapurthala, who proved the driving licence of accused Tarlok Kumar; PW-3 Gurmit Singh, who deposed that the case property had been deposited with him on April 24, 1991 when he had been posted as Moharrir Head Constable at Police Station, Sahnewal; and PWs. 5 and 6 Inspector Sant Kumar and ASI Atma Singh, respectively, who deposed to the fact of actual recovery and further stated that PW Pritam Singh had also been present at the time of search. Pritam Singh was, however, given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations that had been levelled against them and stated that nothing had been recovered from the truck and pleaded that Inspector Sant Kumar had detained both of them on the suspicion of harbouring terrorists and that the narcotic had thereafter been planted on them. Accused Tarlok Kumar further stated that a dispute had earlier occurred between him and the said police officer and he had been falsely involved in this case on that account as well. Accused Kuldip Singh also took up similar plea. The accused also examined Paramjit Singh as DW-1, who proved the copy of the telegram, Exh.DX, and a certified copy of the judgment, Exh.DB.
(3.) THE trial Court observed that there appeared to be no evidence on the file to show that an offer in terms of section 50 of the Act had been made to the accused. It was also observed that though the accused were stated to have been apprehended on April 20, 1991 but from the evidence of MHC Gurmit Singh it appeared that the case property had been deposited with him on April 24, 1991 and this admission was a clinching circumstance against the prosecution and that the entries made in the register Exh.PH, appeared to have been later manipulated by Inspector Sant Kumar to show that the case property had been deposited on April 20, 1991. The Court also observed that it appeared that as the seal with which the samples had been scaled had not been kept in proper custody, the very sanctity of the seizure had lost its meaning. It was also observed that though Pritam Singh, allegedly an independent witness, had not been examined on the plea that he had been won over by the accused yet his presence itself was doubtful as he belonged to a village 30 Kms. away in District Sangrur from the place of recovery. The court also observed that in these circumstances, the fact that no independent witness was forthcoming to support the prosecution clearly casts a doubt on the prosecution case. The two accused were accordingly acquitted of the charge.;