Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 May, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRA No.987-SB of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA No.987-SB of 2007
Date of Decision: 24.05.2010
Pargat Singh
........Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, D. A.G., Haryana.
******
SABINA, J.
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act- for short) vide judgment dated 08.02.2007 by the Judge, Special Court, Kurukshetra. Co-accused Harender Singh and Gurdev Singh were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Vide order of the even date the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.
Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-
" Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution story are that on 12.9.2005 SI Piara Singh along with other CRA No.987-SB of 2007 2 police officials was proceeding in a Government vehicle from Shahabad to Pipli in connection with patrolling and crime detection. A secret information was received to the effect that Pargat Singh, Kala Singh, Harinder Singh and Gurdev Singh residents of Punjab had gone to Rajasthan about 3-4 days ago for bringing poppy husk in a Cielo Car bearing No.PB02K/0253 of black colour and on 11.9.2005 the said Cielo Car was seen in the area of Umri Chowk near G.T.Road. It was further informed that Kala Singh, Gurdev Singh and Harinder had gone towards Ambala after settling time with Pargat Singh and if Nakabandi was conducted on G.T.Road at Sirsma turning, Pargat Singh could be apprehended with poppy husk in the said car. On this information ruqa was sent to police station for registration of the case. Thereafter nakabandi was conducted and report under Section 42 of the Act was prepared and sent to DSP, Head Quarter through Constable Satyawan. In the meanwhile, they stopped a Cielo Car. On enquiry the driver of the same told his name as Pargat Singh. Notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him seeking his option of search in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused CRA No.987-SB of 2007 3 replied that he wanted his search to be conducted in the presence of some Gazetted Officer. The notice and its reply were signed by the witnesses as well as accused. After some time Jagwant Singh Lamba DSP reached at the spot. He was apprised of the facts of the case. After verifying the facts, the DSP directed to conduct search of the vehicle. On search from the dickey of the said car 5 gunny bags and one plastic katta were recovered. On checking the same were found to contain poppy husk. Two samples of 100 grams each were separated from each of the gunny bags and plastic katta. On weighment all the five gunny bags were found to contain 39.800 kgs. aach and plastic katta was having 9.800 kgs of poppy husk. Separate parcels were prepared and sealed with seal bearing letters 'PS' and 'JSL' of DSP and after preparing specimen seal impressions, the case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo."
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Learned trial Court has observed that investigation in this case was not up to the mark. Moreover, link evidence was missing in this case because the Investigating Officer had not deposited the entire case property with CRA No.987-SB of 2007 4 the MHC. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant has already undergone more than four years and six months of actual sentence.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The appellant was apprehended at the spot while in possession of the contraband.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
The prosecution case is that five gunny bags and one plastic katta were recovered from the Ceilo car driven by the appellant. On checking, the same were found to contain poppy husk. Out of the recovered poppy husk, two samples of 100 gms each were separated from each bag. On weighment, five gunny bags contained 39.800 kgs of poppy husk each, whereas, plastic katta contained 9.800 kgs of poppy husk. The samples as well as remaining poppy husk were converted into parcels and were sealed with impressions 'PS' and 'JSL'. Thereafter, the case property along with the car were taken in possession and on return to police station, the case property was handed over to MHC.
Learned trial Court, in para 26 of the impugned judgment, has observed as under:-
" Admittedly, at the time of recovery of poppy husk from Cielo car bearing registration No.PB-02K-0253 CRA No.987-SB of 2007 5 registration certificate of the said car was also recovered. The registration certificate shows that firstly it was in the name of M/s D.D.International, Mall Road, Amritsar. Later on it was transferred to Himanshu Sharma of Amritsar and after him transferred to Rajesh of International Export House and after him to Surjit Singh of Amritsar. The prosecution did not try to join any of these persons in the capacity of registered owner. Nothing was interrogated from these persons as to how the car owned by them was in possession of accused Pargat Singh who had been transporting the huge quantity of contraband from Rajasthan. It is serious lapse on the part of investigating agency. It has also come in evidence of SI Piara Singh PW 11 that even after receiving secret information that the Cielo Car No.PB-02K-0253 was found standing at Umri Chowk on 11.09.2005 but he did not try to investigate. It has also been stated by him that it had come into his investigation that the said Cielo car was having some mechanical defect and due to that reason the said car remained parked for one day near Umri Chowk on G.T. Road, but he had not enquired from anybody as to which mechanic had repaired the said car. This was also not enquired from the accused. It is all the more surprising that even after receiving secret CRA No.987-SB of 2007 6 information about the car, no effort was made by the investigating officer to reach at the spot, to enquire into as to under what circumstances the car was standing unclaimed or who was the owner of the car or who had left the car there. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the secret information was received, the names of all the four accused namely Pargat Singh, Harinder Singh, Gurdev Singh and Kala Singh were specifically mentioned by the secret informer. The role to be played by all the four accused was also specifically narrated. Pargat Singh was required to get repaired the car and joined all the remaining three accused while on the way to Ambala. The investigating agency also did not try to enquire that when the car was lying parked at village Umri on G.T.Road, whether the bags and the katta of poppy husk were removed from the dickey of the car or whether they were lying in the said car. The investigation in the present case has been made in a very casual manner, particularly when huge and commercial quantity of poppy husk is involved."
Thus, the trial Court was of the opinion that investigation in this case had not been duly conducted by the prosecution. A perusal of the affidavit of HC Sunil Dutt reveals that on 12.09.2005, case property including six samples of poppy husk weighing 100 gms CRA No.987-SB of 2007 7 each had been handed over to him, whereas, as per the Investigating Officer, twelve samples in all had been drawn from five gunny bags and one plastic katta recovered from the car. The affidavit also does not specify as to how many bags of poppy husk had been deposited with HC Sunil Dutt on 12.09.2005. In these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that link evidence is missing in this case. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Whenever, there is a doubt in prosecution story, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. The punishment provided under the Act is very harsh and consequently, there is more burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against an accused. In the present case, it is not established clearly from the affidavit Ex.PB executed by HC Sunil Dutt that complete case property was deposited with him. Hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The appellant, who is in custody, be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 24, 2010 anita