RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) ANOTHER case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), which apparently is not properly investigated, leading to the result that is to follow. In far too many cases, it is noticed that the police resort to very casual investigations into such serious cases as a result of which undue benefits accrue to the persons accused of serious offences under the Act. There may be a need to streamline and regulate the manner or mode of investigation. It is noticeable that generally similar or identical pleas are raised in various cases for acquittal in such cases. In majority of the cases, the plea of conscious possession or violation of statutory or mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act are raised. It is not understood as to why the police would not follow such provisions or otherwise properly investigate the source of contraband so that aspect of possession or the accused being in conscious possession, is properly investigated. There is a need for some comprehensive directive to ensure meaningful and proper investigation. Leaving this aside, let us notice the facts in the present case which are as under :- ASI Jaswinder Singh, (PW2) while going in a government Gypsy along with the police party, by chance, happened to effect this recovery. On 23.9.2004, he was proceeding from Rohti Bridge to Rohti Chhana. When the vehicle reached near the house of one Ajmer Singh, a woman was seen running away on seeing the Gypsy. This aroused suspicion in the mind of PW-2. He followed the lady, who had entered into a house. Police party also followed her to the house concerned and noticed the lady fending/pushing two bags lying under the cot. The bags were seen lying with mouth open and poppy husk was found scattered on the ground. The lady was accordingly apprehended. On enquiry, she disclosed her name as Nachhatro wife of Desu, Sainsi, resident of Rohti Channa. Kahan Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of village Mandaur, in the meantime, reached at the spot. The lady accused was apprised of her right while being disclosed that bags were required to be searched and if she so desired, the search could be carried out in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate. She, however, agreed to be searched by ASI Jaswinder Singh. Consent Memo Ex.PB was prepared and search was accordingly conducted. Both the bags were found containing poppy husk which, on being weighed, was found to be 35 kgs. and 32 kgs. in two bags. Two samples, weighing 250 gms. each, were separated from the two bags each. The samples were sealed with the seal bearing 'JS' of ASI Jaswinder Singh. The bags were taken into possession through recovery Memo Ex.PC. Sample seal, Ex.PA , was separately prepared. The personal search of the lady was also carried out and she was taken into custody. Her husband Desu was informed about the arrest. Intimation was also sent to higher authorities. Ruqa was sent to Police Station and formal FIR Ex.PD was registered. The appellant Nachhatro, along with the case property, was produced before SHO/Inspector Harbhajan Singh of Police Station Sadar, Nabha. The case property was deposited with MHC. On the following day, the case property was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate and inventory of the same was prepared in presence of the Magistrate. Samples were sent for analysis to Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the report, challan was presented. Upon trial, the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years coupled with fine of Rs. One lac. Appellant was also directed to undergo two years R.I. in default of payment of fine.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution was mainly supported by ASI Jaswinder Singh and other police witnesses. Independent witness Kahan Singh was given up as having been won over. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, pleaded her innocence besides urging that nothing was recovered from her possession and she had been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel for the appellant has raised manifold pleas in support of the case of the appellant. Counsel would first contend that prosecution failed to establish that the house from which this recovery was effected, was in exclusive possession of the appellant. Counsel would also plead violation of provisions of Section 50 (4) inasmuch as the appellant, who was a lady, was not searched by lady constable. The search and recovery in this case was by ASI Jaswinder Singh and the case is not supported by any witness who could be termed as an independent. The one independent person, joined as a witness, was not examined as having been won over. He was thus given up. Plea is also made that the link evidence is totally missing in this case besides strongly urging that seal in this case, after use remained with the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, it is pleaded that it would be rather unsafe to maintain the conviction in this case in view of so many infirmities in the case of prosecution as noticed above.
(3.) AS already noticed, prosecution in this case would mainly depend upon the version given by ASI Jaswinder Singh,(PW-2). He gave out the manner in which he happened to see the appellant running away on seeing the police vehicle. PW-2 further deposed that he had followed her when she had entered into her house, which led to recovery of two bags of poppy husk. Having given the account of the manner of recovery etc., PW2 deposed that the property was sealed with his seal bearing impression 'JS'.;