Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha vs State Of Punjab on 9 August, 2018
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.330 OF 2017
SUKHDEV SINGH @ SUKHA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State and have perused the relevant material.
2. The accused-appellant challenges his conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.1 lakh and default sentence imposed by the Courts below.
3. We have considered the matter. The recovery of the contraband (705 kgs of poppy husk) was made from a truck of which the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA accused-appellant (Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha) was Date: 2018.08.14 17:48:28 IST Reason: an occupant along with the driver of the truck (Kulwant singh @ Kanta).
2
4. The aforesaid recovery was a chance recovery made in the course of a naka/patrol duty. Seeing the police party, the driver stopped the truck and he as well as the appellant tried to run away. The recovery was made in the presence of a gazetted officer, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-2).
5. The taking of the samples; the sealing of the same as well as the sealing of the case property have been found to be in conformity with the requirements of law by both the Courts below. The case property was also produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate whereafter it was sent to the Malkhana.
6. The only contention that seems to have been advanced in the memo of appeal is that no independent witnesses were examined and that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case of conscious possession of the contraband. Both the contentions cannot be sustained.
7. In the present case the recovery was made at some distance from the village and sometime in the evening. No independent 3 witnesses were available. In any case, the requirement to examine an independent witness is not a mandatory requirement in law. The very fact that the accused had run away from the truck after the vehicle had stopped on being signalled by the police party is ample testimony of the fact that the accused was conscious of the contraband that the truck was carrying.
8. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the conviction and the sentence as ordered by the Courts below.
9. Appeal consequently is dismissed and the orders of the learned trial Court and the High Court are affirmed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(NAVIN SINHA) ....................,J.
(K.M. JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 09, 2018
4
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 330/2017
SUKHDEV SINGH @ SUKHA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
Date : 09-08-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Appellant(s) Mr. Ujjwal Kr. Das, Adv. (AC) (NP) For Respondent(s) Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv.
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Ms. Sukhmani F.S. Bajwa, Adv. Ms. Ashima Mandala, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)