HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-403
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 21,2012

HARNAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 14.11.2000, whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, 'NDPS Act'), for having in possession 148 kilograms of poppy husk without any permit or licence; and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years besides payment of fine of ' 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 09.6.1996, ASI Kundha Singh (PW1) along with other police officials were going in a police vehicle from Village Noorpur Hakima to Village Mussewala. In the way, the police party saw that the appellant, Harnam Singh, was sitting on the gunny bags in the area of Village Noorpur Hakima. After alighting from the vehicle, ASI Kundha Singh (PW1), suspected some intoxicant in the gunny bags, on which the appellant was sitting. Therefore, ASI Kundha Singh (PW1) apprised the appellant of the fact that the search of the bags was to be conducted and if so desired by him the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate could be secured. The appellant expressed his desire to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Memo in that respect was prepared, which was attested by ASI Gurcharan Singh (PW5) and HC Gurdip Singh. Thumb impression of the appellant was also obtained on the said memo. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baljinder Singh Grewal (PW4), was informed through wireless, who reached at the spot. He disclosed his identity to the appellant that he was a Gazetted Officer by virtue of his post as Deputy Superintendent of Police and if the appellant desired then the search could be conducted in his (Deputy Superintendent of Police) presence. The appellant reposed faith in the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Efforts were made to join some person from the public but failed to do so. The consent memo of the appellant to the effect that he wanted his search to be conducted in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was prepared, which was thumb marked by the appellant and attested by the witnesses. Poppy husk was found in all the four bags, on which the appellant was found sitting. One sample weighing 250 grams of poppy husk was drawn from each gunny bag. On weighment, each bag was found containing 37 kilograms of the poppy husk. All the four samples and the four bags containing the poppy husk were sealed by the investigating officer, i.e. ASI Kundha Singh (PW1), with his seal 'KS'. Separate parcel of seal impression was prepared and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Gurcharan Singh (PW5). The case property was taken into police possession vide recovery memos, which were attested by ASI Gurcharan Singh (PW5), HC Gurdeep Singh and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baljinder Singh Grewal (PW4). The memo regarding recovery of the poppy husk was prepared and sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR of the present case was registered by Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh. After apprising the grounds of arrest, the appellant was arrested. Rough site plan of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes was prepared. Statements of the witnesses in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., were recorded. After arrival at the police station, the entire case property with seals as well as the appellant were produced by ASI Kundha Singh (PW1) before the Station House Officer/Inspector Gurmel Singh (PW6), who also put his seal on the entire case property with his own seal 'GS' and took the same in his possession vide separate memo, which was attested by ASI Kundha Singh. The samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis. On receipt of the report and after completion of other formalities of the investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., was presented for prosecution of the appellant.
(3.) The charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.