Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amanpreet Singh @Jaggu vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRR-549-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 26.08.2014
1. CRR-549-2014
Amanpreet Singh alias Jaggu
.... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent(s)
AND
2. CRR-1056-2014
Sukhwant Singh @ Sukha
.... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers 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. R.S.Cheema, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. R.S.Tirkha, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRR-549-2014.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRR-1056-2014.
Ms. Deepa Singh, Addl. A. G. Punjab.
*****
PARVEEN KUMAR
2014.09.01 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-549-2014 -2-
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of CRR-549- 2014, titled 'Amanpreet Singh alias Jaggu vs. State of Punjab' and CRR- 1056-2014 , titled 'Sukhwant Singh @ Sukha vs. State of Punjab', as these revisions have arisen from the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar whereby petitioners have been charge- sheeted under Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') in a case FIR No.60 dated 01.06.2012, registered at Police Station Kartarpur, under Sections 21/25/29 of 'NDPS Act'.
For convenience, facts are being taken from CRR-549-2014, titled 'Amanpreet Singh alias Jaggu vs. State of Punjab'.
Relevant facts in brief are to the effect that on 01.06.2012, Inspector Inderjit Singh along with other police officials was present at check-post Kartarpur at T-Point Bholath in order to perform official duty. In the meantime, he received a secret information that Ranjit Singh @ Raja Kandola son of Kewal Singh, Jat, resident of Happowal Police Station Banga, Harkanwaljit Singh alias Harpinder Singh alias Rupa son of Resham Singh, caste Jat, resident of Jiowal, Harjinder Singh alias Jinder, Jat, resident of Katta Police Station, Bahi Ram, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Sukhwinder Singh alias Laddu son of Balbir Singh, Jat, resident of Chak Singhan, Police Station Garhshankar, Gurinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, caste Jat, r/o Pur Hiran, Balroop Singh alias Roop son of Mohan Singh, caste Jat, resident of Pur Hiran, District Hoshiarpur and Amandeep Singh alias Cheema son of Bhagwant Singh, PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -3- Jat, resident of Timberwala, Police Station Malaud, District Sangrur in connivance with some foreign residents have made a big gang to supply intoxicants. They used to prepare Methamphetamine (Ice) and Heroin and supply the same in Jalandhar and other parts of Punjab, India and abroad also. If members of the gang are apprehended, a huge quantity of heroin and Methamphetamine (Ice) would be recovered from them. On this, FIR was registered and information was sent to police authorities including SP (D) Jalandhar (Rural) Rajinder Singh. Thereafter, recovery of contrabands was effected from above named accused. During the investigation, on 15.06.2012, accused-Nishan Singh @ Toni disclosed that Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu, Kulwinder Singh Mann, Billu in connivance with Ranjit Singh @ Raja Kandola, used to prepare ice at Kirti Nagar New Delhi and supply the same abroad. On 19.06.2012, accused Amandeep Singh Cheema and Harkanwaljit Singh @ Harpinder Singh @ Roopa and Sukhwinder Singh @ Laddu, who were in judicial custody at District Jail, Hoshiarpur in FIR No.49 dated 02.06.2012, registered at Police Station Garhshankar , under Section 21 of the 'NDPS Act' were taken in custody on production warrants and interrogated. They gave important clues for accompanying with the business of Ranjit Singh @ Raja Kandola and disclosed the name of his close associate who supplied the F-Drine to Raja Kandola for preparing the ice. They disclosed in their statements about Sukhwant Singh @ Sukha Gakhal son of Nirmal Singh, caste Jat, resident of Gakhal, P.S.Lambra, District Jalandhar, Onkar Singh @ Shera, resident of 211 Dashmesh Nagar, near Power House, District Hospital. On this, the PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -4- above named Sukhwant Singh @ Sukha Gakhal was arrested on 23.06.2012. During the investigation, he named one more accused namely Kulvir Singh and stated that he is supplying the F-Drine to Raja Kandola on large scale. On 04.08.2012, accused-Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu was arrested, who also during investigation admitted his relations with Raja Kandola and Nishan Singh @ Toni. He also disclosed that he knew both of them due to their stay in his hotel at Delhi and being engaged themselves in travel agent business. Accused-Amanpreet Singh @ Juggu admitted his relations with accused-Ranjit Singh @ Raja Kandola and Nishan Singh @ Toni in connection with the property dealing business only. On 25.08.2012, accused-Ranjit Singh @ Raja Kandola, who was already arrested in case No.18 dated 13.08.2012, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, under Sections 21/22/25 of the 'NDPS Act', was brought on production warrant and arrested in this case also. He disclosed that he prepared Methamphetamine ice on a large scale from F-Drine and other necessary chemicals supplied by John Millan, Brayan Choudhary and Madhuri, resident of Serbia, Croatia and smuggled the same abroad. For preparing the ice, necessary F-Drine was supplied to him by his above mentioned associates. In December, 2010, accused Sukhwant Singh @ Sukha Gakhal supplied him 50 kgs of F-Drine in Delhi from Jodhpur and Ramandeep Singh @ Bopassi son of Gurinder Singh supplied him 50/50 kgs two consignments in Delhi. He also disclosed that Ravinderpreet Singh @ Whisky supplied his consignment of 50 kgs of F Drine at Delhi from Jodhpur. Punit Khurana supplied him two bundles of F Drine PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -5- 50/50 kgs at Delhi procured from Meerut and Rajasthan. Onkar Singh @ Shera supplied him two bundles of 50/50 kgs of F Drine at Farm House at Samrala and he procured the same from Jodhpur through Kulwinder Singh Mann and Sodhi, who are his old friends. On the police report, petitioner-Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu has been discharged in pursuance to inquiry conducted by S.P(D), Jalandhar (Rural).
The trial Court after appreciating the material available on record framed the charge against the petitioners under Section 29 of the 'NDPS Act'. Hence, these petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Mr. R.S.Cheema, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu has contended that secret information was received by Inspector Inderjit Singh with regard to other persons, not the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner has been involved merely on the statement of co-accused- Nishan @ Tony. No other evidence has been collected during the investigation against the petitioner and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter discharged after the investigation by the SP (D), Jalandhar, Rural. Nothing was found against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with co-accused and charge under Section 29 of the 'NDPS Act' has been framed merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned senior counsel further contended that purported confessional-cum-disclosure statement of co-accused Nishan @ Tony is PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -6- not admissible in evidence in any event. Learned senior counsel further contended that disclosure statement of co-accused recorded by the police after arrest cannot be used against other person. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner and co-accused involved in this case are in any way involved in business transaction. Learned senior counsel has relied upon Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 545, Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Advocate vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1962, Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3258, Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 135, Onkar Nath Mishra and other vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 561, Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 394, Amar Singh Ramji Bhai vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 550, Ravi vs. State of Maharashtra 2005(1) ALL MR (Criminal) 701, Sat Pal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 Crl. L. J. 1407 and Kishan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1996 (1) CLJ (Criminal) 69.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in CRR-1056-2014 contended on the same lines as contended by learned senior counsel for petitioner-Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu.
Per contra, learned State counsel has contended that at the stage of framing of charge, mere suspicion is enough. However, for conviction, the prosecution would have to prove its case beyond PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -7- reasonable doubt, by leading cogent evidence and thereafter case can be considered on merit. The petitioner would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which the prosecution would produce to substantiate its case and reference has been made to Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2000) 1 SCC 138 and State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been involved only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused and no recovery has been effected from them. Statements of co-accused are not admissible against the petitioners and on that basis, they cannot be fastened with liability and cannot be charged. It is also case of petitioner-Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu that he was found innocent during the investigation by SP (D), Ludhiana and was discharged.
It is well settled that if on the basis of material on record, the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offence, the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed with the trial. No scrutiny of evidence can be carried out while framing the charge. The case laws cited by learned senior counsel for the petitioner- Amanpreet Singh @ Jaggu are not relevant at this stage for the reason that the same have been passed after appreciation of evidence led at the trial. Allegations against the petitioners mentioned in report under PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -8- Section 173 Cr.P.C. at page 142 of paper-book read as under:
"On 4.8.2012, the accused Amanpreet Singh @ Juggu resident of B-5/DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon has been arrested who also during investigation admitted his relations with the Raja Kandola and Nishan Singh @ Toni. He further stated that he knew both of them due to their stay in his hotel at Delhi and being engaged themselves in travel agent business. It was also stated that accused Amanpreet Singh @ Juggu have also relations with accused Ranjit Singh Kandola and Nishal Singh @ Toni in connection with the property dealing business only. Regarding this enquiry report bearing No.1354-76/JR 7 Reader dated 02.06.2012 No.507 FIZ/3-10-2012 is also enclosed with the challan. On 25.08.2012, head of group Ranjit Singh Raja Kandola who was already arrested in the case No.18 dated 13.08.2012 under Sections 21/22/26/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Special Cell Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and was in judicial custody and brought on production warrants and has been arrested and he during the investigation admitted that "I prepared Methamphetamine (Ice) on a large scale from F-Drine and other necessary chemicals supplied by John Millan, Brayan Choudhary and Madhuri, residents of Serbia, Croatia and have smuggled the same in abroad. To prepare the ice, the necessary F-Drine had supplied to me by my under mentioned associates. In December, 2010, Sukhwant Singh PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -9- @ Sukha Gakhal Jalandhar had supplied me 50 kgs of F-
Drine at Delhi from Jodhpur and Ramandeep Singh @ Bopassi son of Gurinder Singh Kohli resident of Delhi has supplied me 50/50 kgs two consignments in Delhi which he procured from Jodhpur."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Nath Thapa (supra) has held as under:
"32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
This Court deems it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 35 of 'NDPS Act' which relate to the presumption of the culpable state of mind and Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act') which relates to a co-conspirator's statement being relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saju v. State of Kerala 2001 (1) SCC 378 has held as under:
"8. In a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and personally connected with the acts or PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -10- omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is a settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against another. However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of conspiracy. To attract the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for committing an offence. It is only then that the evidence of action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
10. It has thus to be established that the accused charged with criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew was leading to the commission of a crime by one or more persons to the agreement, of that offence. Besides the fact of agreement the necessary mens rea of the crime is also required to be established."
11. In the instant case the hatching of conspiracy between the accused persons has been sought to be proved on the ground that as the deceased had declined to get the pregnancy aborted, the appellant wanted to get rid of her, suggesting the existence of circumstance of motive. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that both the accused were seen together on the date of murder near or about the place of occurrence. Some conversation is also stated to have taken place between the accused persons, the contents of which are neither disclosed nor suggested. Accused alone was found to have boarded the bus in which the deceased was travelling and alighted from it along with her."
PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -11- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal 2002(7) SCC 334 has held as under:
"The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime, is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co- conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. (See: American Jurisprudence Vol. II Sec. 23, p. 559). For an offence punishable under section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. The PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -12- offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means"
In the light of above discussion and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C wherein it is mentioned that the petitioners were in business dealing with co-accused and allegations levelled against the petitioners are of serious in nature, the petitioners have been rightly charged under Section 29 of the 'NDPS Act' which essentially relates to abetment and participation in a criminal conspiracy. It is well-settled that criminal conspiracy cannot be established by virtue of direct evidence, however, it can be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence of an impeccable nature. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that they were not at all involved in the present case and/or connected with the case, cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the material available on record.
It is true that statement of co-accused is not admissible, however, its probative value can be seen only after appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution. If such evidence is not brought on record, then the petitioners would be entitled to acquittal. This argument is not of any help to the petitioners keeping in view the fact that at the PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -13- stage of framing charge, evidence cannot be dealt with to see its probative value and the Court is to consider whether on the basis of material on record there is likelihood of conviction of the accused. In the present case, conclusion is to be drawn by the trial Court in the light of various provisions i.e. Section 35 of the 'NDPS Act' and Section 10 of the 'Evidence Act' read with Section 29 of the 'NDPS Act' which refers to abetment and criminal conspiracy. The term "abetment" has not been defined in the 'NDPS Act', but the same has been defined in Chapters V and VI of the 'Evidence Act'. Section 107 IPC refers to abetment of a thing, Section 108 IPC refers to abettors and conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A IPC.
To constitute an offence of abetting or conspiracy, (i) there must be two or more persons combining together and (ii) an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy. It is not necessary that abetter should consult the person who commits it. If from the material on record the trial Court prima facie finds that there is engagement of a person in conspiracy in pursuance of which offence is committed, the same is sufficient to frame a charge against him in accordance with law. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record.
I have deliberately refrained from giving a detailed and conclusive opinion on merits lest it prejudices the rights of prosecution as well as defence. At this stage, I am only examining the question whether or not the charge should be framed. I have also come to the conclusion that at the stage of framing the charge, Court is not required PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-549-2014 -14- to examine the evidence on merit. The opinion expressed by me will not be treated as determinative or final by the trial Court when it examines the question on merits after evidence is led by the parties.
In the totality of above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any error, illegality or perversity in framing charge against the petitioners. The impugned order is affirmed.
Revision petitions are dismissed.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) 26.08.2014 JUDGE parveen kumar PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.01 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document