VIRENDER SINGH, J. - (1.) APPELLANT Shamsher Singh alias Rameshwar stands convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') vide impugned judgment/order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 30/31.5.2003 for allegedly keeping in his possession four quintals (400 kgs.) of poppy straw. The split up is that in 10 gunny bags there were 800 packets and each gunny bag was containing 80 packets and each packet was containing 500 grams of poppy husk. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year.
(2.) IT is worth mentioning here that one Baljit Singh was also booked with the present appellant. His bail application was cancelled by this Court vide order dated 26.3.2001 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 27831-M of 2000 and his presence was ordered to be secured through warrants of arrest. He could not be arrested and ultimately after initiating proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 9.12.2002. Case of the prosecution On 24.6.2000, Assistant Sub Inspector Raj Singh (PW4) who is also the Investigating Officer of this case along with other police officials was present at canal bridge Motipura Minor, Jhuppa Kalan in connection with patrolling. In the meanwhile Jagat Singh son of Kirpal Singh (PW6) also reached there in a jeep. After some time one Gypsy jeep bearing registration No. HR-26C-778 came from the side of Jhuppa. It was being driven by Baljit Singh (since declared as proclaimed offender) whereas the appellant was sitting in the said Gypsy. A signal was given to the driver of the Gypsy to stop it but he did not bother and ultimately with the help of the barricades it was made to stop. On the basis of doubt of contraband being carried in the said vehicle, ASI Raj Singh asked both of them with regard to their search. It was in compliance with the Section 50 of the Act. Notice Ex. PD was served upon both of them. Their reply was also obtained in which they opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The reply is Ex. PE. Thereafter a message Ex. PF was sent to DSP Narinder Kumar PW5 who arrived at the spot and thereafter on his directions, the Gypsy was searched. It was containing 10 bags. On opening, it was found that each bag was containing 80 packets and each packet was containing 500 grams of poppy straw. The total 800 small packets were recovered. The total weight turned out to be 400 kgs. (4 quintals).
(3.) IT is then the case of the prosecution that one packet weighing 500 grams was taken out as sample from each bag whereas 79 small packets taken out from each bag were kept in the said bag. Ten samples as well as residues were sealed with the seal of RSD (referring to ASI Raj Singh). It was then handed over to DSP Narinder Kumar. The entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PG. The appellant and his co-accused could not produce any permit or licence for keeping the poppy straw in their possession. A ruqa Ex. PJ was sent to Police Station Siwani for registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal First Information Report Ex. PA was recorded. Rough site plan Ex. PH was also prepared at the spot. The appellant and his co-accused Baljit Singh were formally arrested and thereafter they along with case property and the witnesses were produced before Sub Inspector/SHO Rajender Kumar of Police Station Siwani (could not be produced by the prosecution on account of his ill health). He verified the facts and fixed seals bearing inscription AS on the samples as well as residues. The report Ex. PP was prepared in this regard. A report Ex. PM prepared under Section 57 of the Act was also verified by DSP Narinder Kumar vide his verification note Ex. PM/1. The samples were then sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Haryana. On receipt of the report, which reflected that the samples were containing poppy straw, the investigation culminated into filing of challan against the appellant and his co-accused. They were charged under Section 15 of the Act.;