- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), brought by convict Bur aka Dalbir Ram, is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 292 of 2006 by Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar (trial judge, for short), convicting and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years in addition to punishment of fine amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) on the allegation of having kept ten bags of Poppy Husk in an abandoned tube -well room belonging to Mohinder Singh of village Khanpur (who has since settled in United States of America (USA, for short).
(2.) FACTUAL Matrix: Appellant, along with his wife Rani, was arraigned as an accused in First Information Report (FIR, for short) No.160 of 31.08.2000 recorded at Police Station, Phillaur under Section 15 of the Act. Story of the prosecution runs as under: On 31.08.2000, the Investigating Officer was heading a police contingent, which was holding a picket in village Jajja Khurd Chowk Apra. He received a secret information that appellant and his wife, Rani, were selling Poppy Husk in Mohinder Singh's abandoned tubewell room and had parked their scooter nearby. Investigating Officer wrote a note (commonly called a ruqa) based whereupon a formal FIR came to be recorded. Investigating Officer then raided the disclosed place, after joining Gurmej Singh as an independent witness from canal bridge. Appellant and his wife, on sight of the police posse, escaped from the spot towards canal bank on their scooter. However, PW Gurmej Singh identified the two. On being informed, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Sajjan Singh Cheema also reached the spot. On search of the room ten bags containing Poppy Husk were found to be lying therein. Investigating Officer separated from each bag samples weighing 250 grams each, sealed the sample parcels, as also the bags containing the remainder weighing 34 kilograms and 750 grams each bag, with his seal bearing impression "YR", prepared a sample seal, handed over the seal, after use, to Head Constable (HC) Karnail Singh and took the sample parcels and bags of remainder in police possession vide memorandum of recovery, Exhibit PA, after these were also sealed by the DSP with his seal bearing impression "SS". DSP retained his seal. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of witnesses, drew a site plan of the place of recovery and caused the sample parcels tested by Chemical Examiner.
(3.) ON completion of investigation and receipt of a report from Chemical Examiner, a report, as required by Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., was prepared and was presented before the learned trial judge, who complied with the provisions of Section 207, Cr.P.C., and upon consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted therewith, and after hearing submissions of the appellant and the prosecution, formed an opinion that there was ground for presuming that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act, which was triable exclusively by him, and, accordingly, framed in writing charge against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema (PW2), HC Karnail Singh (PW5) and Gurmej Singh (PW6) to bring on record recovery of the contraband and other aspects of investigation; DSP Jasdip Singh (PW2) to say that the Investigating Officer, before deposit of the case property in the police Malkhana, had produced it before him; HC Jaswinder Singh (PW3) to prove his affidavit, Exhibit PW3/A, to the effect that case property was deposited with him and he had sent the sealed sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner, and CII Amarjit Singh (PW4) to place on record his affidavit, Exhibit PW4/A, to the effect that the sealed sample parcels were taken to, and deposited in, the office of Chemical Examiner by him. After witnesses for the prosecution had been examined and before he was called on for his defence, learned trial judge questioned the appellant generally on the case so as to afford him an opportunity to explain the inculpating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution in its evidence. Appellant denied these circumstances and reiterated plea of his innocence and false implication.;