Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Baljinder Singh And Another on 23 July, 2008
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Criminal Appeal No. 356-DBA of 1998 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 356-DBA of 1998
Date of decision: 23.7.2008.
State of Punjab ....Appellant
Versus
Baljinder Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
****
Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants
Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The learned Trial Judge exonerated the respondents/accused of a charge of having been found in possession of 20 Kgs. of opium at the time they were apprehended by the police on 6.2.1995. The finding proceeds on the fact-based premise that the prosecution had not been able to prove to intactness of the case property, including sample, from the time of seizure and upto the time when the sample was analysed by the Chemical Examiner.
We have heard learned State counsel and also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused and have perused the record.
From the legal angle, as also propriety angle, the burden Criminal Appeal No. 356-DBA of 1998 -2- **** to prove a charge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) becomes heavier upon the prosecution because the offences under the Act carry a minimum, and a fairly deterrent, punishment.
In a detailed evidence-based finding in para 9 (which runs through as many as four pages), the learned Trial Judge noticed umpteen facts to hold that the prosecution had not been able to prove that the sample parcel remained intact from the time of its seizure till examination by the Chemical Examiner. Those reasons are self-contained and factually correct, we find ourselves in complete agreement with that finding.
Apart from it, the prosecution plea that case property including the sample have been produced before the Magistrate does not stand proved because the sample produced at the trial did not bear the signature of any Magistrate nor did the sealed parcel containing the remainder bear any signature of the Magistrate. Further, SI Sakattar Singh PW-2 informed the Court (in the course of cross-examination) that investigation of this case had been entrusted to ASI Balwinder Singh and an entry was made in that regard in the DDR. On the other hand, all that ASI Balwinder Singh stated was that investigation of the case had not been entrusted to him and that he had only been deputed to produce the accused and the case property before the Magistrate. He declined having been ever joined in the investigation of this case after he had produced the case property before the Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 356-DBA of 1998 -3-
**** The grounds of arrest were not furnished to the respondents/accused nor was any special report forwarded to the Illaqa Magistrate or to the senior officers of the police.
Furthermore, the Investigating Officer conceded that the police party had been at the place of Naqabandi about 45 minutes prior to arrival of respondents/accused over there. He did not try to join any independent member of public in the police party. That aspect assumes added importance in view of the fact that though Constable Nasib Singh had been deputed to obtain weighment material, he was not directed to secure the presence of any independent witness including Sarpanch, Panch or Numberdar of the village.
The investigating agency did not try to ascertain the title of the scooter by which the respondents/accused were travelling/carrying contraband at the time of capture.
The reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court, in order to support the finding of acquittal, is relatable to record and acceptable at law. Apart therefrom, it (i.e. the reasoning) is adequate to validate the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge. We find no cause to interfere.
Dismissed.
( S. D. ANAND )
JUDGE
July 23, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
Pka JUDGE