Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No. 669-SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 669-SB of 2003
Date of decision 10.12.2012.
Jatinder Singh and another
...... Appellants.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. S.S.Brar Advocate for
Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab
K.C.PURI, J.
This is an appeal directed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2003 passed by Shri G.S.Saran, Special Judge, Amritsar vide which the accused have been convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (though charges were framed under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short - the Act ) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment to the period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.1999 ASI Gian Singh along with HC Dial Singh and other police officials was Criminal Appeal No. 669-SB of 2003 2 present at Chowk Shakti Nagar in connection with patrolling, an informer gave a secret information that the accused Jatinder Singh and Parkash Singh are dealing in Bhang and in case raid is conducted, Bhang can be recovered from their possession. Accordingly, ruka was sent to the police station and on the basis thereof formal FIR was registered against the accused and investigation commenced. In the meantime Salinder Singh, SHO of Police Station 'D' Division Amritsar also came there and message was sent to DSP Gurmit Chand, who also came there and after that the police party went to the shop of the accused. The accused were grinding the Bhang and they were apprehended. The DSP disclosed his identity to the accused and asked them whether they wanted to be searched before him or a Magistrate, the accused reposed confidence in him and the same was reduced into writing. ASI Gian Singh conducted the search of the accused and from their possession, 27 bags of Bhang were recovered. 250 grams Bhang was taken out as sample from each bag and the remaining on weighing came to 14Kgs. 750 grams in each bag. The case property was taken into possession. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of the PWs were recorded. After completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented.
3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs. Charge under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ASI Gian Singh, ( PW-1 ), HC Varinder Kumar ( PW-2 ), Constable Karam Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 669-SB of 2003 3 (PW-3), Inspector Salinder Singh (PW-4), Gurmit Chand DSP (PW-5), and closed the prosecution evidence.
6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
7. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants vide judgment and order dated 21.3.2003, as aforesaid.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.3.2003, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon the secret information. There was every possibility with the investigating officer to join independent witnesses. Non-joining of independent witnesses is fatal for the prosecution. No reasoning has been given for non-joining the independent witnesses. No action was taken against any person, who refused to join the investigation.
10. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in the said submission.
11. In this case DSP Gurmit Chand was the recovery witness along with ASI Gian Singh, investigating officer. The learned trial Court has rightly held that DSP Gurmit Chand (PW-5), who is a Gazetted Officer and SHO Salinder Singh (PW-4) would not depose falsely. Moreover, the recovery of 405Kgs of Bhang further lends support to the prosecution version. Such a huge quantity of Bhang cannot be planted moreover when there is no reason for falsely implicating the accused. It is not the rule of Criminal Appeal No. 669-SB of 2003 4 law that in every case, the Court should insist on independent corroboration. Sometimes, the Court comes to the conclusion that there can be chances of false implication, in that case the Court insists on independent corroboration. On the facts of the present case, the trial Court has rightly accepted the testimony of the official witnesses.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that case property was not connected with the accused as there was no slip or any other identification mark when the case property was produced in the Court. However, this point has been elaborately dealt in by the trial Court. The case property was produced after three years. So, in these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that there are chances of damage to the slips pasted on the bag. The trial Court has rightly held that such a huge quantity of Bhang cannot be planted.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the investigating officer has no right to find out the ownership of the shop where the alleged recovery has taken place. The learned trial Court has rightly discarded this argument. The accused were grinding the Bhang at the time and as such their conscious possession has been rightly held by the trial Court.
14. Lastly, it is submitted that the punishment awarded is harsh.
15. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in the said submission.
16. The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for having been found in possession of 405 Kg of Bhang which cannot be said to be on higher side.
Criminal Appeal No. 669-SB of 2003 5
17. So, no ground for interference in the judgment and order of the trial Court is made out. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
18. The accused/appellants are stated to be on bail. They be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of their sentence.
19. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
December 10, 2012
sv