Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 11 October, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Appeal No.468-SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.468-SB of 2003
Date of Decision 11.10.2010
Mahesh Kumar
...... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Deepinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2003, passed by Special Judge, Faridkot, convicting and sentencing the appellant- accused (herein referred as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity 'the Act') for keeping in his possession one kg. of opium without any permit or licence.
In nutshell, the facts are that on 12.04.1997, Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh, C.I.A. Staff, Moga alongwith other police officials was going towards Baghpura on a Government vehicle bearing registration No.PB04- C-7206, driven by Constable Pargat Singh, in connection with patrolling and search of suspected persons. When they were 100 yards short of Gill Road, the accused was seen coming and on seeing the police party he (accused) tried to trace back. On suspicion, he was apprehended. After giving him option of search to be conducted by a Gazetted Officer or a Criminal Appeal No.468-SB of 2003 2 Magistrate, he was searched in the presence of Harcharan Singh, DSP Moga and also an independent witness Baldev Singh. On his search, one kilogram of opium was recovered out of which ten grams was taken out as a sample which was put into a match box and the remaining opium was put into a plastic tin. The sample as well as bulk opium were converted into parcels and sealed with the seal bearing impressions 'JS' and 'HS'. Sample seal impression was prepared separately. On further personal search of the accused, Rs.20/- were recovered which were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. Ruqa Ex.PD was sent on the basis of which FIR Ex.PD/1 was recorded by ASI Baldev Singh. Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh, Investigating Officer, prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PE and after informing him the grounds of arrest vide memo Ex.PF, he was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On return to the police station, the accused alongwith case property was handed over to SHO Navjot Singh of Police Station City Moga, who after verifying the facts, fixed his own seal also on both the parcels. On the next day, the accused as well as the case property were produced before Ilaqa Magistrate with the request Ex.PH and thereafter the same was deposited in the malkhana. Ultimately, on completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.
On finding a prima facie case, he was charged under Section 18 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW1), ASI Santokh Singh (PW2), Sub Inspector Ranjit Singh (PW3), Head Constable Darshan Singh (PW4), DSP Navjot Singh (PW5) and Constable Charanjit Singh (PW6). The report of Criminal Appeal No.468-SB of 2003 3 Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PL was also tendered.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. In defence, he examined Krishan Kumar Bansal (DW1).
The trial ended in conviction.
Arguments heard. Record perused. Multifold contentions, raised by learned counsel for the appellant, have been countered by Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. There are two star witnesses namely Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW1) and Sub Inspector Ranjit Singh (PW3) to prove the recovery of contraband from the accused. PW1 Jasbir Singh has reiterated the prosecution version while stating that it was a chance recovery when they on patrolling apprehended the accused on suspicion. He had also given option to the accused to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and he was then searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer and one kilogram of opium was recovered from him.
His statement has been fully corroborated by Sub Inspector Ranjit Singh (PW3). Both the witnesses, though are holding official status, have withstood the test of cross-examination. No such contradiction, worth the name, has been pointed out which may be sufficient to discard their testimonies and throw away the prosecution version. The provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act have been duly complied with.
Learned counsel for the accused has further contended that no independent witness, so joined, has been examined. In this regard, it is noticed that Investigating Officer had joined Baldev Singh, an independent witness, but was given up being won over by the accused. Since the case of the prosecution has been fully established from the testimonies of PW1 Criminal Appeal No.468-SB of 2003 4 Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh and PW3 Sub Inspector Ranjit Singh, therefore, non-examination of independent witness pales into insignificance.
As regards the delay of 20 days in sending the sample to the Chemical examiner, the case of the prosecution has been fully proved by the two star witnesses namely Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW1) and Sub Inspector Ranjit Singh (PW3). Nothing has come on the record which may suggest the tampering of the samples or improper sampling. The evidence further reveals that the sample was deposited in the laboratory with the seals intact, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the accused by sending the sample a bit late.
The defence set up by the accused is not plausible and the same does not inspire any confidence. Case of the accused is that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers whereas Krishan Kumar (DW1) examined by the accused deposed that about five years back, he alongwith the accused Mahesh Kumar had quarrelled with some police officials whereupon he (accused) was taken to police station and was implicated in the case. Had the story been true then the accused must have moved an application to the higher authorities exposing the alleged high-handedness of the police officials but nothing such was done, as such, I am constrained to believe that such defence version is not correct.
No other argument has been raised.
For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.10.2010 mamta-II