- (1.) THE present appeal has been directed against judgment dated 7.7.2005 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Rupnagar whereby the appellant -Rana Singh has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"), extracted hereinbelow: - " To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -.In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months."
(2.) THE facts capitulated from the judgment of the learned trial court read as follows: - On 8.2.2003, SI Gurcharan Singh, Incharge CIA Staff Ropar along with other police officials and Jaswant Singh, a person from the public was going from Ropar towards village Bahadurpur in connection with patrolling and checking of suspects. Near village Katli, the accused was noticed holding a bag in his right hand and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed and took a turn towards left hand side in the fields. On suspicion, he was apprehended. He was informed that there is suspicion that he may be keeping some contraband in the Jhola (Bag), therefore, his search is to be conducted. He was given option to be searched in the presence of some gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused gave option to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer and accordingly consent memo Ex. PG was prepared. Smt. Baldev Kaur, Deputy Superintendent of Police reached there and asked the accused if he wanted to be searched in the presence of any other gazetted officer but the accused reposed confidence in DSP Baldev Kaur and accordingly consent memo Ex. PB was prepared. SI Gurcharan Singh (Investigating Officer) conducted the search of the Jhola in the presence of Baldev Kaur, DSP and opium wrapped in glazed paper was found. Two samples weighing 20 gms were separated and the remaining opium came to be 460 gms. Separate parcels of samples and residue were prepared which were sealed with the seal bearing impression 'GS' of the investigating officer and 'BK' of the DSP. The sample seal Ex.PC was separately prepared and the entire case property was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD Ruqa Ex. PW -5/A was sent to the police station on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered in the police station. The accused was arrested vide arrest Memo Ex. PF. On return to the police station, the accused along with case property was produced before SI Manvir Singh, SHO, Police Station Ropar who verified the facts of the case and affixed his own seal on three parcels and sample seal and the case property was deposited with MHC Balbir Kumar. On the same date, the case property and the accused were produced in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar who affixed his signatures on the case property and again it was deposited with the MHC Balbir Kumar. One of the samples was sent to the chemical examiner and the chemical examiner vide report Ex. PW5/C opined that sample is that of opium containing morphine 2.00%. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for commencement of trial.
(3.) AFTER necessary compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") and having heard counsel for the parties, charge under Section 18 of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined constable Satnam Singh PW1, Baldev Kaur, DSP PW2, SI Manvir Singh PW3, SI Bhagwant Singh PW4, SI Gurcharan Singh, Investigating Officer PW5 and HC Balbir Kumar PW6. On evidence of the prosecution being closed, the accused was examined in compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 313 of the Code wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He raised the plea that he was arrested from his house in the presence of Panch Gurnam Singh and Balbir Singh. He is a mechanic and due to business rivalry, he has been falsely indicted in the crime. However, he examined Gurnam Singh DW1 in his defence.;