Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh @ Binda Son Of Balbir ... vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 8 July, 2013
Author: S.S.Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron
Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012
Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, House No. 80, Sector -2,
Chandigarh through its Intelligence Officer P.K.Sharma.
.........................Prosecutor
versus
Balwinder Singh @ Binda son of Balbir Singh, resident of village Thatha,
Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar.
.........................Accused-Convict/Respondent
AND CRA NO.D-365-DB OF 2012 Balwinder Singh @ Binda son of Balbir Singh, resident of village Thatha, Tehsil Patti,District Amritsar.
........................Appellant versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, House No. 80, Sector -2, Chandigarh through its Intelligence Officer P.K.Sharma.
.................Respondent Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 2 AND CRA NO.D-371-DB OF 2012 Decided on:- 08.07.2013 Satnam Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of village Pidian, Tehsil Tarn Taran, Police Station Goindwal, District Amritsar.
......................Appellant versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, House No. 80, Sector -2, Chandigarh through its Intelligence Officer P.K.Sharma.
...................Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH
Present:- Mr. Angel Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.D.Sharma
Advocate for Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh,
prosecutor in Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 and respondent in CRA Nos. D-365-DB and D-371-DB of 2012.
Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate,for respondent in Murder Ref. No. 5 of 2012 and appellants in CRA No. D-365-DB and D-371-DB of 2012.
S.P.BANGARH, J Murder Reference No.5 of 2012, titled Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit versus Balwinder Singh @ Binda, Criminal Appeal No. Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 D-365-DB of 2012, titled Balwinder Singh @ Binda versus Narcotics Control I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 3 Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit and Criminal Appeal No. D-371-DB of 2012, titled Satnam Singh versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, pertain to common impugned judgment and order of sentence, therefore, these shall be disposed of by this common judgment.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.12.2005, a secret information was received by P.K.Sharma, the then Intelligence Officer (PW2) , Narcotics Control Bureau ('NCB' for short) to the effect that some persons indulging in sale of contraband were coming from Amritsar in an Indica car for supply of contraband at bus stand, Chandigarh. This information was reduced into writing by PW2 P.K.Sharma, who then presented the same before O.P.Sharma, Superintendent, NCB, who directed PW2 to lay a naka after organizing a team. On 12.12.2005, at about 01:00 a.m, a naka was laid near round-about of sectors 24 and 25, Chandigarh. At about 03:00 a.m, Mukesh Kumar and Sonu, two independent witnesses were associated in the investigation. Before their joining, notices Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW1/A respectively were served upon Mukesh Kumar and Sonu independent witnesses.
At about 03:15 am, NCB team noticed a car coming from the side of Sector 25, Chandigarh going towards sector 24 Chandigarh, that was stopped a few yards away from the place of naka. Two persons wearing turbans ran away from the car, while the third who was also wearing turban, remained sitting in the car that was stopped at naka. P.K.Sharma, Intelligence Officer disclosed his identity to that person, as also, introduced his team to him. He also made a query about the identity of that person who disclosed his name as Satnam Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of village Pidian, Tehsil Tarn Taran, police station Goindwal, District Amritsar. He was informed that he was suspected of carrying narcotic drugs in his car which is to be Mamta searched and before search of his car, he could search members of the NCB 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 4 team who offered themselves before Satnam Singh for search. Satnam Singh (appellant in criminal appeal no. D-371-DB of 2012) declined to search the members of NCB team, however, he was informed that O.P.Sharma, a gazetted officer, was present in the team. Then Satnam Singh appellant was searched in his presence, as also, in the presence of members of the NCB team and the witnesses. During search of the door panel of left driver side, two packets wrapped in khakhi tape were found in cavity of door panel. During search of the car, after opening zip of the seat, cover of rear back seat two more similar packets wrapped in khaki tape were recovered.
Satnam Singh appellant, on inquiry disclosed that packets contained heroin that he had brought from Amritsar with the assistance of Balwinder Singh @ Giani (appellant in criminal appeal No. D-365-DB of 2012) and sarpanch for sale, thereof, in Chandigarh. Satnam Singh appellant further disclosed that Balwinder Singh appellant and sarpanch ran away when car stopped a few yards away from the naka. Packets suspected to contain the narcotic were tested with the help of drug detection kit and tested positive for heroin. All four packets were taken into possession vide recovery cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Those were weighed and each packet weighed one kilogram. Then the packets were opened, each packet was wrapped in a polythene and again in a white coloured cloth bag with markene 7777, 2003. The white coloured cloth again contained one polythene packet in which white coloured powder and granules were found. The substance in the four packets were put in one big polythene packet and homogenous mixture was made and marked as Lot-A. Two representative samples of five grams each were drawn from the packet Lot A and were marked as sample A1 and A2. The sample was put in a small size polythene, heat sealed and then put in a white colour paper envelope that was closed by pasting.
Mamta2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 5
Seal of NCB-06 was taken from O.P.Sharma, Superintendent, that was affixed on the paper slip pasted on the small packet of sample Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The polythene bag, khaki tape and white cloloured cloth in which contraband was packed was put in white markene cloth bag that was stitched properly from the opening side Ex.P4. After withdrawing the sample from Lot A, remaining contraband was packed in a big polythene bag, heat sealed and again put in a markene cloth which was closed by stitching properly and, thereafter, sealed with the seal of NCB-06. The samples were signed by Satnam Singh appellant, independent witnesses Balwinder Kumar and O.P.Sharma, Superintendent. Similarly Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were also signed.
Later, a panchnama Ex.PW1/E was prepared at the spot regarding total recovery, that was read over to Satnam Singh appellant, who signed it, as also, independent witnesses Balwinder Kumar O.P.Sharma, Superintendent and P.K.Sharma signed it. A copy of the panchnama Ex.PW1/E was given to Satnam Singh appellant, who gave receipt in token of having received the same. Its memo Ex.PW2/D regarding withdrawal of sample was prepared at the spot. Satnam Singh appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/F whose statement Ex.PW1/B was also recorded after giving him notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. His personal search vide memo Ex.P6 was also conducted. Vide notice Ex.P7, intimation of arrest of Satnam Singh appellant was given to concerned police station. Notices Ex.PX upon Sonu witness and Ex.P8 on Mukesh witness were served. Statements of witnesses Sonu Ex.PW1/D and Mukesh Ex.P9 were recorded. Satnam Singh appellant was produced in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate along with case property and all documents and the latter signed the case property.
Case property was later handed over to O.P.Sharma, Superintendent, Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 6 Incharge of godown vide Ex.P1. Intimation of case was given to the superior officer O.P.Sharma vide memo Ex.P10. The Superintendent sent a letter Ex.PW2/A to the Chemical Examiner alongwith one sample parcel and a copy of test memo Ex.PW2/D. Two test memos along with one sample were sent to the Chemical Examiner, New Delhi by Superintendent, O.P.Sharma. Later, reports of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 were received. Information of arrest and seizure Ex.P14 was given to O.P.Sharma, who further gave this information to Zonal Officer NCB, Chandigarh vide Ex.P15. From search of Satnam Singh appellant, photocopy of the registration certificate of car No. HR-01J-9639 mark P1 was recovered. Later, it was learnt from the reading of a newspaper report that Balwinder Singh was arrested by Amritsar police in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic case and was lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar. An application was moved in Amritsar Court for taking Balwinder Singh in custody in this case. Balwinder Singh was arrested and notice under Section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) Ex.P16 was served on him and his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the Act was recorded, that was signed by him. Thereafter, Balwinder Singh appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.P18.
After completion of investigation, NCB presented complaint Ex.P13 before the Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh to the effect that it appears that Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh appellants have committed offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 27A and 60 of the Act.
On presentation of police report, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, were furnished to the appellants Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh and charge under Section 21 of the Act read with Section 8, 27A and 60 of the Act was framed against both of them on Mamta 02.07.2007. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 7 both the appellants in simple hindi, whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial NCB examined, as many as, five witnesses who testified as under:-
PW1 Sonu was joined during investigation of the case near the round about of sectors 24/25, Chandigarh. PW1 further deposed that on 12.12.2005, he was coming from Jalandhar in his car bearing registration No.PB-65-0880 to Chandigarh, when he reached at roundabout of sectors 24/25, Chandigarh, a naka had been laid and he was stopped by the officials at naka and one person introduced himself as Intelligence Officer of NCB, Chandigarh and disclosed his name to be Sh.P.K.Sharma and asked him (PW1) to join the investigation as independent witness, whereto, he acquiesced. He further deposed that he was given notice Ex.PW1/A to join investigation that bears his signatures and another person by the name of Mukesh was also joined, as an independent witness in the investigation.
PW1 further deposed that at about 03:15 a.m, one white coloured indica car was seen coming from the side of Punjab to Chandigarh, that was signaled to stop by the NCB team and that was stopped at some distance and two persons from the car sitting on the back seat slipped away and the person who was driving car, on asking, disclosed his name as Satnam Singh (appellant present in the Court).
PW1 further deposed that P.K.Sharma disclosed Satnam Singh appellant that they had suspicion that he indulges in contraband and they want to search his car and P.K.Sharma disclosed him that O.P.Sharma is a gazetted officer and is also present at the spot and offered him to search them before the search of the car. PW1 further disclosed that Satnam Singh declined the offer to search the members of the team and his car was Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 searched by P.K.Sharma in the presence of the team and in his (PW1's) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 8 presence, as also, in the presence of another independent witness and during the search of the car, from the door panel of the front door adjacent to the driver seat, two packets with heavy khaki tape were noticed and from the back seat of the car, two more packets were recovered. He further deposed that on asking, Satnam singh disclosed that packets contained heroin and Balwinder Kumar, Intelligence Officer took out small quantity of substance from all the four packets recovered from the car and tested the same by using drug detection kit being carried by them and it was found that the substance contained in the bags was heroin. PW1 further deposed that after the recovery of the said heroin from Satnam Singh appellant, that was weighed with the help of weighing scale and each bag weighed one kilogram and in this manner, the total white coloured powder and granules weighed four kilograms. He further deposed that the substance was thoroughly mixed after taking out from the bags and two samples of 5 gms each were drawn and mixed homogeneously. Samples Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were shown to the witness during his deposition and he deposed that these were signed by him, besides, other official witnesses.
PW1 further deposed that remaining case property containing heroin was put in a polythene bag Ex.P3 and sealed in white cloth that bears his signatures, besides, the signatures of other independent witnesses, of appellant and other NCB officials. He further deposed that residue material was packed in a separate packing Ex.P4 that was also sealed and he appended his signatures, thereon, and other witnesses including Satnam Singh appellant also appended their signatures on Ex.P4 and statement Ex.PW1/B of Satnam Singh appellant was recorded, that was signed by him and PW1. Another document Ex.PW1/C was also prepared to show the recovery of the contraband that bears his signature. He also deposed that his statement Ex.PW1/D was recorded at the spot, that was signed by him. Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and He further deposed that panchnama Ex.PW1/E was prepared at the spot and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 9 thereafter, Satnam Singh appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He also deposed that all the proceedings were conducted at the spot and the statements were recorded at the spot in his presence, as also, in the presence of other independent witnesses and NCB officials.
PW2 Balwinder Singh, Sepoy also deposed that on 13.12.2005, he handed over one sample bearing seals of NCB, Chandigarh numbering four along with its memo in duplicate and covering letter Ex.PW2/A and he boarded a bus for Delhi on 13.12.2005 itself in the evening for deposit of the sample with the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi and on 14.12.2005 in the morning, he deposited the sample and obtained the receipt Ex.PW2/B in this regard. He also deposed that when the samples were handed over to him, all the four seals were intact and he deposited the same with seals intact with Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. He also deposed that during this period, no one tampered with the sample, as also, he himself did not tamper, therewith.
PW3 (wrongly mentioned as PW2) P.K.Sharma deposed that on 11.12.2005, he received a secret information that some people were coming in an indica car from Amritsar and they are dealing in contraband and are to supply the contraband at bus stand, Chandigarh and he wrote down the information and produced the same before Superintendent, NCB, Chandigarh. Sh.O.P.Sharma, who directed him to put a naka and organized a team. He also proved letter Ex.PW2/A written by him to Superintendent and endorsement, thereon Ex.PW2/B. He also deposed that after organizing the team on 12.12.2005 at about 01:00 a.m, he laid a naka near round about of sectors 24/25, Chandigarh and at about 02:00 a.m, two independent witnesses namely Mukesh Kumar and Sonu were associated in the team and a notice Ex.PW2/C was given to Mukesh Kumar witness and Ex.PW1/A to Sonu witness. He further deposed that at about 03:15 a.m, members of the Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 10 NCB team noticed a car from sector 25, Chandigarh for going towards sector 24 and the car stopped a few yards away from the naka and two persons wearing turbans came out from the car and ran away and a third person, who was also wearing turban remained in the car and they got suspicious about the car and stopped the same. He further deposed that he introduced himself to the person driving the car as NCB official and also introduced the other members of the team and inquired about his identity. The occupant of the car disclosed his name as Satnam Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of Amritsar (present in the Court).
PW3 further deposed that he informed Satnam Singh appellant that he is carrying narcotic drugs in a car and they want to search the same. He also informed him that before the search of his car, he could search him, as also, other members of NCB team and he (PW3) offered himself for the search, but Satnam Singh appellant declined to search him and other NCB officials and he also informed Satnam Singh appellant that O.P.Sharma, present in the team, is a gazetted officer and later he (PW3) searched the car of the appellant Satnam Singh in the presence of the latter, as also, in the presence of NCB team and witnesses and during search of the door panel of the left side of the driver seat, he noticed two packets wrapped in khakhi tape in the cavity of door panel and during search of the car, he found from the underside of rear back seat after opening the zip of seat cover two packets of similar nature wrapped with khakhi tape were recovered and he inquired from Satnam Singh appellant regarding these four packets and he disclosed that the packets contained heroin, that was brought by him from Amritsar to sell it in Chandigarh along with his two associates namely Balwinder Kumar @ Giani and sarpanch.
PW3 further deposed that Satnam Singh appellant also Mamta disclosed that Balwinder Singh and sarpanch, his two associates, ran away 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 11 from the spot from the car, that was stopped a few yards away from the naka and it was suspected that the packets were containing narcotic drugs and were tested by drug detection kit carried by the team and these tested positive for heroin. He further deposed that all these four packets were taken into possession vide recovery cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and all these four packets were weighed with the weighing scale being carried by the team at the spot and each packet weighed one kilogram and all the four packets in total were four kilograms in weight. He further deposed that all these four packets were opened and were wrapped in a polythene and again in a white coloured cloth packet with markene of 7777 and 2003. The white coloured cloth again in a white coloured powder and granules substance were found.
PW3 further deposed that the substance contained in four packets was put in one big size polythene bag and that was made homogenous mixture and marked to be as Lot A. Two representative samples of 5 gms each were drawn from the packet Lot A and those were marked as sample A1 and sample A2 and sample powder was put in a small size polythene, which was heat sealed and after heat sealing, these were put into white coloured paper envelope, which was closed and seal of NCB-06 was taken from O.P.Sharma, Superintendent at the spot and affixed on the paper slip pasted on the packet of the samples. Case property Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were produced during deposition of this witness. He further deposed that samples Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were signed by him, besides, Satnam Singh appellant, independent witnesses, Balwinder Kumar and Superintendent O.P.Sharma. He also deposed that samples Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were also signed by him, Satnam Singh appellant, independent witnesses, Superintendent O.P.Sharma and Balwinder Kumar and all these persons signed in the presence of each other. He deposed that after this panchnama Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and Ex.PW1/E was prepared at the spot regarding the details of recovery. This integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 12 panchnama was readover to Satnam Singh appellant and independent witnesses and appellant signed the same after understanding the same and this panchnama was also signed by independent witnesses Sonu and Mukesh, Balwinder Kumar, O.P.Sharma and himself. He also deposed that copy of the panchnama was given to Satnam Singh appellant and the latter gave receipt in token of receiving the copy of the panchnama. Its memo Ex.PW2/D regarding withdrawal of the sample was prepared at the spot. He also deposed that appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/F. PW3 further deposed that after recording the panchnama proceedings, statement of Satnam Singh appellant was recorded and the latter made the statement voluntarily. This statement Ex.PW1/B was recorded after giving him notice Ex.P5 under Section 67 of the Act. He also deposed that both the witnesses signed the said statement, besides the appellant, he (PW3) also appended his signatures, thereon. After recording the statement, arrest memo of Satnam Singh appellant Ex.PW1/F was prepared, personal search of Satnam singh appellant was also conducted by him (PW3) and memo Ex.P6 was prepared in this regard by him that was signed by Satnam Singh appellant and the witnesses and this intimation of arrest of Satnam Singh appellant was given to the concerned police station vide notice Ex.P7. PW3 also deposed that he served a notice to the witnesses under Section 67 of the Act. PW3 also proved notice Ex.PX given to Sonu (PW1) and notice Ex.P8 given to Mukesh Kumar witness, that were duly signed by him and its copies were given to Sonu and Mukesh Kumar respectively. PW3 also deposed hat he also recorded statements Ex.PW1/D and Ex.P9 of Sonu and Mukesh respectively that were signed by them. He also deposed that he produced Satnam Singh appellant in the court of Illaqa Magistrate, as also, he produced case property and other documents and after going through the documents and the case property, Illaqa Magistrate signed the case property, Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and parcel Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were produced during the deposition of this witness. integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 13 Sample parcel Ex.P1 and sample parcel Ex.P2 were also shown to this witness during deposition, who further deposed that case property was handed over to O.P.Sharma, Superintendent, Incharge of the godown vide receipt Ex.P10 and O.P.Sharma, Superintendent sent a letter Ex.PW2/A to the chemical Examiner along with one sample parcel. He also sent him a copy of test memo Ex.PW2/D. He also deposed that two test memos along with one sample were sent to Chemical Examiner Ex.P11 was received by his office and that report is made on the over leaf of Ex.P12. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, complaint Ex.P13 was filed before the Court, that was duly signed by him. He also deposed that information of arrest and seizure Ex.P14 bears his signatures. He also deposed that O.P.Sharma further gave intimation of arrest and seizure to Zonal Director of NCB, Chandigarh vide Ex.P15. He also deposed that he arrested Balwinder Singh appellant present in the court and he learnt from the reading of a newspaper that he was arrested by Amritsar police in some NDPS case and was lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar and he submitted application to Amritsar Court for taking Balwinder Singh appellant in custody in this case and then he arrested him in this case and a notice Ex.P16 under Section 67 of the Act was served upon him. He also deposed that Balwinder Singh was arrested vide Ex.P18, that was signed by him, as also, by Balwinder Singh appellant. He also proved the copy of FIR No. 27 of 23.02.2007, police station B Division, Amritsar under NDPS Act mark P2.
PW4 S.K.Mittal, Chemical Examiner deposed that on 14.12.2005, he was posted as Assistant Chemical Examiner in Narcotic Section of Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi and on that day, Balwinder Kumar, Constable from NCB, Chandigarh came along with white bag and forwarding letter Ex.PW2/A and its memo in duplicate white paper seal was pasted on sample packet. Four red seals (lakh) were affixed on the Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 four corners of this sample packets and facesmile of the seal tallied with I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 14 impression that was given in the test memo. All the seals were in an intact condition. There were signatures on the sample paper. Sample was having identification mark A1. The other side of the sample packets was having signature of the Judicial Magistrate. He further deposed that on the direction of the Chemical Examiner, he received a sample and issued receipt under his signatures Ex.PW2/B. PW4 further deposed that after doing the needful registration work, sample was kept in the strong room under the lock and key with the assistance of Mukesh Kumar, Chemical Assistant and on 10.02.2006, sample was taken out from the strong room with the assistance of Mukesh Kumar, Chemical Assistant under his supervision and all the seals of the sample were in an intact condition and sample packet was opened and a plastic pouch containing the sample was found. The sample was in the form of light brown coloured powder and lump. He further deposed that sample was found positive for heroin i.e dialectical morphin and report was issued under his signatures on 24.02.2006 and the test memo was received along with sample Ex.P12 and his report on the back side of its memo is Ex.P11.
PW5 O.P.Sharma (wrongly recorded as PW10 in the impugned judgment) deposed that he was appointed as Superintendent, NCB vide letter Ex.P19 and the notification is Ex.P20 and on 11.12.2005, he was present in his office at house no.80, Sector 2, Chandigarh and on that date, P.K.Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chandigarh produced before him a written information Ex.PW2/A that certain persons are involved in drug trafficking and they will be coming from Amritsar to Chandigarh in Indica car during mid night hours and if naka is organized at the round about of sectors 25/37, the accused can be apprehended with narcotic drugs. He put his endorsement on the said information Ex.PW2/B and directed the Mamta Investigating Officer to organize the naka operation and constitute NCB team 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 15 and after that a team was constituted by Investigating Officer and he himself proceeded towards roundabout of sectors 25/37/24/38.
PW5 further deposed that Investigating Officer P.K.Sharma associated two independent witnesses namely Sonu and Mukesh before laying a naka and at about 03:15 hours on 12.12.2005, a white coloured Tata Indica car was spotted from a distance from the naka, in which three sikh persons were seen travelling and that car was signaled to stop by NCB team, that was stopped before the naka and two persons who were sikhs got out of the car and ran away and the number of the car was HR-01J-9639. He further deposed that thereafter, NCB team immediately searched the car and found Satnam Singh appellant (present in the Court) driving the car and Investigating Officer P.K.Sharma introduced himself and the NCB team along with independent witnesses namely Sonu and Mukesh to Satnam Singh appellant and informed him that he has suspicion that narcoic drug i.e heroin may be concealed in his car and NCB team intended to search the car. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer introduced him to Satnam Singh appellant as Superintendent, NCB and informed him that search of the car will be undertaken in his presence, as also, in the presence of independent witness and thereafter, Investigating Officer offered himself and NCB for their personal search by Satnam Singh appellant, which he declined and informed that NCB team can search the car. Thereafter, P.K.Sharma started search of the car and during search of the door panel of the non driving seat was opened and from the cavities of the door, two packets wrapped with khaki adhesive tape were recovered and during the search of the back seat of the car beneath seat cover, two similar packets wrapped with khaki adhesive tape were recovered. P.K.Sharma, Investigating Officer asked Satnam Singh about the packets and the contents of all the recovered four packets and Satnam Singh appellant disclosed that these packets contained heroin and Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and that he had brought these alongwith his two associates namely Balwinder @ integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 16 Giani and sarpanch from Amritsar area and he further disclosed that they have to sell it somewhere in Chandigarh and, thereafter, getting suspicion about the contents of the recovered packets, tapes of all the packets were cut opened and below the tape, a polythene packet was found, below which there was a markene cloth bag on which impression 7777, 2003 and picture of aeroplane within triangles were found and inside the markene cloth, a transparent polythene was found in which whitish granular powdery substance was found. Similarly, in all the packets, similar kind of packing material and substance was recovered and, thereafter, Balwinder Kumar took a pinch of suspected material from each packet and tested the same with the help of drug filled detection kit available with the NCB team and the test resulted positive for heroin. He further deposed that, thereafter, P.K.Sharma, Investigating Officer took the recovered bag in his possession and took the weighment of the individual packets and all the four packets weighed one kilogram each and thereafter, total four kilograms of heroin was recovered from the car driven by Satnam Singh appellant.
PW5 further deposed that P.K.Sharma took out the recovered material from all the packets on a polythene sheet and homogeneously mixed the entire material in a big polythene bag that was named as Lot A and, thereafter, two representative samples of 5 gms each were drawn out of Lot A, which were marked as Lot A1 and Lot A2 and both these representative samples were put into two small polythene packets that were heat sealed and that were further put into two white paper packets, which were closed and on the opening side of both the envelopes, paper slips on each were pasted. PW5 further deposed that P.K.Sharma obtained the seal bearing impression NCB-06 from him and affixed four seals on each sample and test memos in triplicate were prepared on the spot in his and in the presence of the independent witnesses by withdrawing the Lot A1 and Lot A2 and copy, Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and thereof, is Ex.PW2/D. He also deposed that recovered material parcel i.e Lot integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 17 A was heat sealed and put in a markene cloth bag that was stitched properly and four seals of NCB-06 were affixed on this parcel and Satnam Singh appellant, P.K.Sharma, independent witness on spot namely Sonu and Mukesh put their signatures on Lot A, A1 and A2 and thereafter packing material were put in another markene cloth bag marked as Lot P, that was also sealed on the spot.
PW5 further deposed that car bearing No. HR-01J-9639, that was used for transportation of the recovered four kilograms of heroin was also seized on the spot and was marked as Lot V. A panchnama was also recorded at the spot. During the proceedings, seizure cum recovery memo Ex.PW1/C was also prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer and, thus, proceedings concluded at about 12:30 p.m and those bear his signatures, as also, of independent witnesses and the appellant. He further deposed that thereafter, he, on 12.12.2005, forwarded the original sample mark A1 along with its memos in duplicate through Balwinder Singh, Sepoy to the Chemical Examiner Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi for chemical analysis alongwith forwarding letter Ex.PW2/A. He also deposed that seized case property was handed over by the Investigating Officer P.K.Sharma to him at the spot and he issued go-down receipt Ex.P10 to the Investigating Officer. The report of the chemical examiner was received in the office on 13.03.2006 holding the samples positive for dialectal morphin. i.e heroin. All the recovery proceedings were carried in his presence, as also, in the presence of independent witnesses on the spot. He also deposed that case property was not tampered with by anybody, as long as, it remained in his possession.
Thereafter, the evidence was closed on behalf of the NCB. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, Satnam Singh Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 18 Procedure '(Cr.P.C for short), wherein, he denied the allegations of the NCB, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. He also stated that no recovery was effected from him and he will file written defence plea on the next date of hearing. In his written statement, Satnam Singh appellant stated as under:-
"I am innocent person and false case has been planted upon me. I reached at Balongi barrier in my car HR-01J-9639 on dated 11/12.2005. I was thoroughly searched by the two persons of NCB. No incriminating article was recovered from my possession or my car. After that my mobile phone no. i.e 9855994159 was taken by these two people (NCB) then at about 9:54 p.m made a phone call on 2749867 from my mobile phone to NCB office and they were informed that nothing incriminating was recovered, but after some time, when I was allowed to go, I demanded my mobile phone and in the meantime when another Indica car driven by Sonu, having three persons inside the car, the NCB officer gave a signal to stop the car. The three persons who were inside car ran away from the spot and the driver of the car i.e Sonu was arrested by the NCB officials and contraband was recovered. After that, the NCB officials pressurized me to become a witness in this case, in which I have refused. After that I alongwith my car and Sonu and his car were taken to one house i.e NCB office and remained detained upto evening and after taking bribe amounting to ` 40,000/- from Sonu; Sonu was released and false case has been planted upon me. I tender into my defence evidence the original bill of my mobile phone no. 9855994159 Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW2 land line telephone no. 2749867 installed at the NCB office (Zonal) Chandigarh."
Balwinder Singh appellant was also examined under Section 313 Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of NCB, pleaded innocence and I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 19 false implication in this case. He stated that no recovery was effected from him.
Both Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh appellants were called upon to enter in defence and they examined Soravdeep Singh as DW1 who deposed that Spice Communication Ltd., C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali is not maintaining the call details of any mobile number for a period of more than one year as per the instructions of the department of Telecommunication Govt. of India and accordingly, he had not brought any record pertaining to 09.12.2005 in respect of the mobile phone no. 9855994159. The original bill dated 07.01.2006 alongwith itemized bill printed overleaf was shown to him. He deposed that the same was issued on 07.01.2006 which is Ex.DW1/A and as per the bill, the number was issued in the name of Satnam Singh son of Bachan Singh, District Jail Sangrur. As per the itemized bill at serial no.34, call was made from this number to 0172- 2749867 on 11.12.2005 at 215414 hours for a total duration of 27 seconds. This was the last call as per the itemized bill.
DW2 Naresh Kumar brought the summoned record, according to which, telephone number 2749887 was installed in the office of Zonal Director, house no. 80, Sector 2, Chandigarh, which was still operational at the address supra. He deposed that as per the record, order Ex.DW2/1 for installation of the said phone was issued on 21.03.2005.
DW3 Parkash Ram brought the summoned record pertaining to the daily wagers in the office of NCB for the year 2005-2006. As per record, there was one sweeper namely Mukesh Kumar and Mali Gopal, Arjun etc. He proved the copy of the bills Ex.DW3/A comprising of 47 pages, wherein, the name of father of Mukesh Kumar is not there. He deposed that Mukesh Kumar used to come from Nayagaon and in the office, the record is Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 maintained in duplicate and one copy is sent to Pay and Accounts office of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 20 NCB, Delhi and the second copy was brought by him in the Court. He also brought the letter No. PAO/P&M/MHA/Admn/09-10/Circular 760 dated 21.09.2010, issued by Pay and Accounts Officer of Government of India, in terms of which, contingent vouchers for the year 2005-2006 have been weeded out as per the guidelines under Para 16.16 of Civil Accounts Manual, thus, in this scenario NCB, Chandigarh, is unable to produce the original vouchers pertaining to Mukesh. Receipt Ex.DW3/C bears the signatures of Mukesh at point mark A. He stated that he cannot say as to whether the document Ex.P9 bears the signature of one Mukesh Kumar, said Mukesh Kumar is the same person whose signatures are appearing on Ex.DW3/C. However, he deposed that Mukesh Kumar whose signatures are appended on Ex.DW3/C was appointed on daily wages as Sweeper.
DW4 Ravi Kant also deposed that he appeared as a witness in case titled NCB vs. LiorAvi Ben and others and he made statement before the Court. He also proved the certified copy of statement Ex.DW4/A. He also stated that in each and every case investigated by NCB, a panchnama is prepared. According to panchnama of this case, the father's name of witness Mukesh is Raghbir Singh, resident of Nayagaon. He also stated that witness always used to sign panchnama. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.
After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment held Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 21C of the NDPS Act, 1985 and vide impugned order sentenced Balwinder Singh appellant to death in terms of Section 31A(1a) of NDPS Act and Satnam Singh appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay fine of `1,50,000/- and in default, thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period Mamta of three years.
2013.09.13 14:18I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 21
Aggrieved, thereagainst, both the appellants Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh have come up in these appeals with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for their acquittal of the offence, wherefor, they have been convicted and sentenced.
Learned Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh (trial court) also sent a reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C for confirmation of death sentence that was awarded to Balwinder Singh appellant.
Learned counsel appearing for the NCB placed reliance upon Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2011(74) ACrC 7, wherein, it was held that the confession made by the appellant before the officers of the NCB is admissible in evidence, as they are not the police officers within the meaning of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. In this judgment, accused was convicted on the basis of said confession that was found to be voluntary.
Learned counsel for NCB also placed reliance upon Kanhiya Lal vs. Union of India 2008(1) Crimes (SC) 154, wherein, it was held that confession made by the accused before the officer of NCB is admissible in evidence as the said officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was also held that conviction can be maintained solely on the basis of confession made by he accused under Section 67 of the Act.
Learned counsel for NCB also placed reliance upon Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India, 1990(1) RCR(Criminal) 719, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held that officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence, who have been vested with powers of an officer-in-Charge of a police station under Section 53 of the Act are not 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the confessional statement Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 recorded by such officer in the course of investigation of a person accused of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 22 an offence under the Act is admissible in evidence against him. It was also held that powers conferred on officers under the NDPS Act in relation to arrest, search and seizure were similar to powers vested on officers under the Custom Act.
Learned counsel for NCB also contended that two independent witnesses before the search of the car, wherein, appellants were travelling were associated. He also contended that one independent witness namely Sonu was examined as PW1, whose testimony during cross examination could not be shattered. He also contended that no motive could be ascribed to him to depose falsely in this case. Even nothing has been brought on record to indicate that this witness had any animus or hostility towards the appellants.
Learned counsel for the NCB also contended that the confession made by Satnam Singh appellant is admissible, as NCB officer, who recorded his confession, was not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He also contended that the confession Ex.PW1/B made by Satnam Singh appellant qua Balwinder Singh is admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Apart from that, Balwinder Singh appellant had propensity towards the crime as concededly he has been convicted and sentenced in a case under the Act by a Special Court at Amritsar and concededly, his appeal against the said conviction and sentence is pending in this Court.
Learned counsel for the NCB also contended that Balwinder Singh also made confession about his involvement in this case before the NCB official which is Ex.P17 on the record. He also contended that at the time of recording of these confessions of the appellants vide statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.P17, they had not been arrested as accused, who were Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 arrested only after the recording of their confessions. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 23
Learned counsel for the NCB also contended that NCB officials are vested with the powers of the police officers under Section 53 of the Act and that being so, the Investigating Officer (PW3) P.K.Sharma who effected recovery of contraband from the car No. HR-01J-9639 belonging to Satnam Singh made sufficient compliance of Section 55 of the Act by producing the case property before PW5 O.P.Sharma, Superintendent.
Learned counsel for the NCB also contended that the link evidence in the case is complete and no one tampered with the case property during investigation till the samples were delivered in the office of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi by PW2 Balwinder Singh. He also contended that case property remained in possession of PW2, PW3 and PW5, whose testimonies during cross examination could not be shattered on the point of completion of link evidence and, therefore, it must follow that sample parcels, as also, the case property were never tampered with by any one during investigation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 633, wherein, it was held that custom officer is a deemed police officer under the NDPS Act and the confession made by the accused before custom officer is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was contended that as per this judgment, custom officers have been invested with powers of police officers under Section 53 sub section 2 of the Act, therefore, custom officer thus, would be deemed police officer for purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and a legal fixation must be given full effect. It was also held in this judgment that confession made under Section 108 of the Custom Act, cannot be sole basis of conviction. Therefore, the conviction in the instant case was set aside.
Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 24 confession made by Satnam Singh appellant was wrongly relied upon by the learned trial court qua him, as also qua Balwinder Singh appellant and therefore, both the separate confessions made by the appellants should be repelled and they should be accorded benefit of doubt. He also contended that only Satnam Singh was allegedly arrested from he spot and according to the version of the NCB, two more persons were travelling in the car at the time of alleged recovery and only one person namely Balwinder Singh has been identified and arrested and the other person who has been mentioned as sarpanch has not been arrested and therefore, that creates sufficient doubt in the prosecution version and benefit of doubt may be accorded to the appellants.
However, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Section 50 of the Act was not required to be brought into vogue as alleged recovery was not made from the personal search of the accused. He also contended that as per the complaint, seizure memo and panchnama prepared at the spot, substance allegedly recovered from the possession of Satnam Singh appellant was white in colour, but as per the testimony of PW4, it was light brown coloured powder and lump were found. So, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that this was flaw in the prosecution case and, therefore, benefit of doubt was required to be given to them by the learned trial court and he thus, prayed that the benefit of doubt may be granted to the appellants due to this flaw.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the statements of the appellants under Section 67 of the Act could not be termed as voluntary as these were allegedly made when they were in custody.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and Mamta documents placed on the record of the trial Court with the assistance of 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 25 learned counsel for the parties.
PW1, PW3 and PW5 happened to be present at the time of incident. They unanimously deposed that at about 03:15 hours on 12.12.2005, a white coloured indica car was spotted at some distance from naka in the area of sectors 24/25, wherein, three sikh persons were seen travelling. According to them, car was signaled to stop and two persons sitting, therein, slipped away while the third person Satnam Singh (appellant herein), who was driving the car was apprehended, to whom the prosecution witnesses ibid introduced themselves and offered them for search. Satnam Singh appellant did not opt for the search of PW1, PW3 and PW5 supra. Thereafter, the car was searched and the heroin was recovered. That was tested at the spot with the help of drug detection kit. Usual formalities regarding weighing of heroin and sealing that were performed by the Investigating Officer PW3 with the help of other officials present at the spot. Statement Ex.PW1/B of Satnam Singh appellant under Section 67 of the Act was also recorded.
So, it is the unanimous evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW5 that heroin weighing 4 kilograms was recovered from the car that was being driven by Satnam Singh appellant. It may be mentioned here that when statement Ex.PW1/B of Satnam Singh appellant was recorded, he was not arrested, as an accused in the case. However, he was arrested later vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/F. So, when Satnam Singh appellant suffered statement Ex.PW1/B, he was not in custody of the NCB officials. Therefore, this statement Ex.PW1/B is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, is relevant.
Judgment in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 633, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is Mamta inconsequential to the appellants, as this judgment was rendered in a case 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 26 where recovery was made by custom officers, who have been invested with the power of the police officers. In the case in hand, recovery was not made by the custom officers while, on the contrary, the same was made by NCB. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanhiyalal v. Union of India 2008(1) Crimes SC 154 held that conviction can be passed solely on the basis of confession made by the accused under Section 67 of the Act. In this judgment, confession was made by the accused before officer of the NCB and it was held that such confession is admissible in evidence. Said officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act.
In view of the judgment supra, it must follow that since the recovery in the case in hand was made by the officers of NCB, confession made by the accused before PW2 and PW3 is admissible in evidence, as officers are not police officers within he meaning of Section 25 of he Indian Evidence Act. Apart from that, PW1 is a public witness and, therefore, confession made by Satnam Singh appellant before him is admissible. Even in Kanhiyalal's case (supra) confession of the accused on the basis of confession alone was upheld. So, the principle laid down in Kanhiyalal's case (supra) is that conviction can be maintained solely on the basis of confession made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. According to this judgment, statement under Section 67 of the Act is admissible to be used as confession against the person making it. It was also held that Inspector of the NCB is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Ac, although, he is vested with powers of police officer under Section 53 of the Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2011 AIR (SC) 2490, held that confession made by accused before the officers of NCB is admissible in evidence, as these Mamta officers are not police officers. In this judgment, recovery of opium from the 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 27 accused was made by officers of the NCB. Accused made confession before the said officers of the NCB. It was held that officers of NCB are not police officers within the meaning of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and hence, confessions made before them are admissible in evidence. Accused was convicted on the basis of said confession that was found to be voluntary.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India 1990(1) RCR (Criminal) 719 also held that if an officer is vested under any special law with powers analogous to those exercised by a police officer, he does not, thereby, become a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act unless he has the power to lodge a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It was also held that officers of the department of Revenue Intelligence who have been vested with the power of incharge of police station under Section 53 of the Act are not 'police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the confessional statement recorded by such officers in course of investigation of a person accused of an offence under the Act is admissible in evidence against him. It was further held that power conferred on officers under the Act in relation to arrest, search and seizure were similar to the powers conferred on officers under the custom Act, 1962.
In the case in hand, police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C was not submitted by the NCB before the Judge, Special Court, on the contrary, a complaint Ex.P13 was lodged against the appellants. Besides, confessional statement Ex.PW1/B is not the only evidence against Satnam Singh appellant. As already observed, PW1, PW2 and PW5 searched the car of Satnam Singh appellant that resulted into recovery of four kilograms of heroin. These prosecution witnesses were subjected to searching cross examination by the learned counsel for the appellants before the learned trial Mamta Court, but long cross examination failed to elicit anything worth the name 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 28 which could possibly cause any dent in their testimonies. No motive can be ascribed to PW1, PW2 and PW5 to depose falsely in his case.
Even, two independent witnesses i.e PW1 Sonu and Mukesh Kumar were associated during investigation and indubitably Indica car which was being driven by Satnam Singh appellant and from search, thereof, four kilograms of heroin were recovered belonged to Satnam Singh appellant. It was for him to explain the circumstances, wherein, the heroin came in his car. Even, his plea taken in written defence is that he was stopped by the NCB team at 09:54 pm and that team made call from his mobile phone, but nothing incriminating was recovered and in the meantime, another indica car driven by Sonu carrying three persons reached and those three persons ran away from the spot and driver Sonu was arrested and contraband recovered and that he (Satnam Singh) was pressurized to become a witness and on his refusal, he was taken to NCB office along with his car and Sonu, where he was detained and Sonu was released after accepting bribe of ` 40,000/- and a false case was planted upon him. This plea has not been corroborated by any other evidence. Even, it has not been stated by Satnam Singh appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that statement Ex.PW1/B was obtained under pressure, force or compulsion. His simple stand is that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He nowhere stated that he did not suffer confessional statement Ex.PW1/B. There is nothing on the record to indicate that on the date of occurrence, he was not travelling in the car and he had handed over the same to someone else and that person was apprehended by the NCB officers along with four kilograms of heroin in the car.
In Ram Singh's case (supra), it has been held that when an accused is made aware of the confession made by him and he does not make complaint within the reasonable time, the same shall be relevant factor Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 to adjudge as to whether the confession was voluntary or not. Besides, it has I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 29 already been observed that this confessional statement Ex.PW1/B recorded under Section 67 of the Act is not the only evidence of possession of heroin against Satnam Singh appellant.
So, keeping in view the confessional statement Ex.PW1/B of Satnam singh appellant, as also, keeping in view the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW5, it follows that Satnam Singh appellant was apprehended in a car bearing registration no. HR-01J-9639 belonging to him by the NCB officials and from the search of the car that was conducted, four kilograms of heroin was recovered. So, Satnam Singh is held guilty of possession of four kilograms of heroin.
As per statement Ex.PW1/B of Satnam Singh appellant, that was recorded under Section 67 of the Act by PW3 P.K.Sharma, he (Satnam Singh appellant) met Balwinder Singh appellant and one sarpanch in Tarn taran. They told Satnam Singh appellant that they had eight kilograms smack that they were to deliver and sell it to one person at bus stand Chandigarh and they would pay him ` 20,000/- for transporting the smack in his car at Chandigarh. At about 2300 hours on 11.12.2005, he alongwith Balwinder Singh and sarpanch and the contraband started for Chandigarh in his car bearing No. HR-01J-9639. On the way, they stopped at Haveli Dhaba at Jalandhar, where Balwinder Singh, sarpanch delivered smack to one Bhagat, then again they started at about 01:00 a.m on 12.12.2005 for Chandigarh in car bearing no. HR-01J-9639. They had tea near Ropar and at about 0315 hours on 12.12.2005, when they reached near Sector 25, Chandigarh near naka, out of fear, he stopped the car at some distance before the naka. Balwinder Singh and Sarpanch slipped away and thereafter, his car was searched and recovery effected.
It has come in evidence that after reading from a newspaper that Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 Balwinder Singh was arrested by Amritsar police, PW3 P.K.Sharma moved an I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 30 application to Amritsar Court for taking Balwinder Singh appellant in custody. Notice Ex.PW16 under Section 67 of the Act was served on Balwinder Singh appellant and his statement Ex.P17 under Section 67 of the Act was recorded by PW3 P.K.Sharma. Later, Balwinder Singh appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.P18, which implies that he was not arrested and was not in custody when his statement Ex.P17 was recorded. In his statement Ex.P17 Balwinder Singh stated that on 11.12.2005, in the evening, Harpreet Singh @ Preet @ sarpanch aged about 37 years came to his house and told him that he had 8 kilograms heroin that he had to sell in Chandigarh and Jalandhar. He offered him (Balwinder Singh) a sum of ` 10,000/- per kilogram as commission for accompanying him. On that day, they both met Satnam Singh appellant near Amritsar Jail at about 06:00 p.m. Harpreet Singh offered commission of ` 20,000/- for eight kilograms of heroin and later agreed to transport the heroin in his car bearing No.HR-01J-9639. Then they started at 08:00 p.m in the car of Satnam Singh alongwith heroin. At about 11:00 p.m, they reached near petrol pump, two persons came on a motor cycle and Satnam Singh delivered to Harpreet Singh four packets of heroin and later gave four packets to the motor cyclist who then left. Then they started for Chandigarh in the car. Hapreet Singh's car brake down on the way that was left at workshop near Kapurthala road, then he (Balwinder Singh) and Harpreet Singh in Satnam Singh's car left for Chandigarh. They had meals near Ropar and at about 0315 hours on 12.12.2005, when they reached near Sector 25 chowk, they saw naka and out of fear, Harpreet Singh asked Satnam Singh to stop the car, that was stopped. When the car stopped, he (Balwinder Singh) and Harpreet Singh @ sarpanch ran away and told Satnam Singh to wait for them in Sector 17, Chandigarh. However, Satnam Singh was intercepted and arrested on 12.12.2005. He (Balwinder Singh) Mamta and Harpreet Singh left Chandigarh for Tarn Taran. Balwinder Singh 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 31 appellant was arrested by the NCB officials on the basis of confessional statement Ex.PW1/B of Satnam Singh appellant. As per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, confession of one accused is admissible against co-accused, but by itself it is not to be given undue weightage unless there is corroboration. It cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
In Pancho vs. State of Haryana (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 165, it was held that extra judicial confession of co-accused is an extremely weak basis, therefore, court cannot start with confession of co-accused. It must begin with other evidence. If the Court has formed its opinion with regard to quality and effect of other evidence, then only is it permissible to turn to confession in order to receive assurance as to conclusion of guilt. The proper way to approach a case involving confession of a co-accused is, first to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then it is not necessary to call the confession in aid.
It must be held that confession Ex.PW1/B is not the only evidence against Balwinder Singh appellant. If the conviction upon Balwinder Singh appellant would have been based on the basis of confession Ex.PW1/B, in that event, benefit of doubt could be accorded to him but in this case, confession Ex.PW1/B of Satnam Singh appellant is not the only evidence against Balwinder Singh appellant, on the contrary, he voluntarily suffered statement Ex.P17, that was lawfully recorded under Section 67 of the Act by PW3 P.K.Sharma. Balwinder Singh appellant did not retract from his confessional statement Ex.P17. He has failed to bring the circumstances on the record, which could constrain the court to come to a conclusion that this statement Ex.P17 was not voluntarily suffered by Balwinder Singh appellant. From the record, it is candid that Balwinder Singh appellant was Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 32 produced before the Illaqa Magistrate, he had opportunity to say that NCB officials have fabricated his confession. Rather, no application was moved by Balwinder Singh appellant before the Illaqa Magistrate.
In these circumstances, confessional statement Ex.P17 of Balwinder Singh must be relied upon which is not the only evidence against him. His co-appellant Satnam Singh through his confessional statement Ex.PW1/B made corroboration of the statement Ex.P17 of Balwinder Singh. Indeed, both the appellants corroborated confessional statement of each other. If confessional statement Ex.P17 would not have been there on record, then the case of Balwinder Singh appellant could be rendered doubtful. This statement Ex.P17 of Balwinder Singh must be held admissible in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Raj Kumar Karwal's case (supra) , wherein, it has been held that if an officer is invested under any special law with powers analogous to those exercised by a police officer, he does not, thereby, become a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, unless he has the power to lodge a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Even, his confession is admissible in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2011 AIR (SC) 2490 , wherein, it was held that confession made by the accused before the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau is admissible evidence as they are not police officers.
This confession Ex.P17 of Balwinder Singh is also admissible in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kanhiya Lal vs. Union of India's case (supra) wherein it was held that statement of accused under Section 67 of the Act is admissible to be used as confession against him. It was also held that Inspector of Narcotic Bureau is not a Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act though, he is vested I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 33 with powers of police officer under Section 53 of the Act. Statement of accused to Inspector of Narcotic Bureau is not hit by Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act.
Judgment titled Francis Stanly @ Stalin v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 505, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not applicable to the case in hand for according benefit of doubt to the appellants. In his judgment, confession was made before an officer of department of Revenue Intelligence. It was held that such a confession is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, yet such confession must be subject to closer scrutiny that a confession made to private citizens or officials who do not have investigating powers under Act, In this case, there was confession of the accused that narcotic was given to him by co-accused. Co-accused also made confession that he had given the narcotic to the accused. Both the accused later on retracted the confession. There was no other evidence available against co- accused and his conviction was set aside. This judgment, as already held, is inconsequential to Balwinder Singh appellant, as he did not retract from the confession.
Both the confession statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.P17 of Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh appellants respectively were recorded before their arrest and before they were formerly charged of the offence. As already held, no formal application was moved on their behalf for retracting the confession made. Such, thus, being the situation, there is no reason to discard confessional statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.P17 of Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh appellants respectively, as also, there is no reason to reject the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW5 to the effect that on the date of incident, Satnam Singh appellant was travelling in car bearing No. HR-01J- 9639 belonging to him that was searched and pursuant, thereto, four Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 34 kilograms of heroin was recovered. Contents were made homogenous and two samples were drawn. One sample was sent to Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi.
Case property was handed over to PW5 by PW2 after sealing the same. Since, PW5 was invested with the powers of officer-in-charge of the police station, PW2 by handing over the case property to PW5 made sufficient compliance of Section 55 of the Act.
It has come in testimony of PW2 Balwinder Singh, Sepoy that sample of this case was handed over to him on 13.12.2005 at about 06:00/06:30 pm by Sh.O.P.Sharma, who was examined as PW5. It has come in evidence of PW2 that so long as the sample remained in his possession, no one tampered, therewith, as also, he did not do so. Evidence of PW2 during cross examination could not be shattered. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2. The same must be, thus, relied upon and on the basis, thereof, it must be held that sample parcel of this case, so long as, remained in his possession, no one tampered, therewith and that he deposited the sample with the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi on 13.12.2005. It has also come in testimony of PW5 that he handed over the sample parcel of this case to PW2 Balwinder Singh, Sepoy for deposit, thereof, in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi for chemical analysis along with forwarding letter Ex.PW1/A and the report of the chemical examiner was received in the office on 14.03.2006 holding the sample positive for dialectical morphin. He also deposed that no one tampered with the case property, so long as, it remained in his possession. The evidence of this witness also during cross examination could not be shattered. There is, thus, no reason to disbelieve the same. PW3 also handled the case property and in his deposition, he also deposed likewise PW2, PW3 and PW5 so long as the case property remained in their Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 35 possession, did not allow any one to tamper the same. So, link evidence in his case is complete.
As per the testimony of PW4 S.K.Mittal, Chemical Examiner, the sample was found positive for heroin i.e dialectical morphin and report was issued by him on 24.02.2006. He deposed that test memo received along with sample is Ex.P12 and his report is on the back side of test memo Ex.P11 which bears his signatures. His evidence also could not be shattered during cross examination and on the basis, thereof, it must be held that the contents of the contraband recovered from both the appellants were heroin i.e dialectical morphin. The quantity of the recovered heroin was 4 kilograms, which was, thus, commercial quantity. Appellants were, thus, found in possession of commercial quantity of the heroin.
Defence version of Satnam Singh appellant has not been corroborated by any cogent evidence. It is after thought. Bill of mobile no. 9855994159 Ex.D1 in the name of Satnam Singh appellant has been brought on record which indicates that Satnam Singh appellant made a call for duration of 27 seconds at 09:54 p.m on 11.12.2005 at the time of his detention to phone no.. 0172-2749867 which has been installed in the office of the Zonal Director, House No. 80, Sector 2, Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel for the appellants during this period, Satnam Singh appellant was in police custody. But according to DW1 Nodal Officer, Spice Communication Ltd. Mohali, the company was not maintaining any call details of any mobile number for a period of more than one year as per government instructions. He did not depose in respect of the mobile no. 9855994159. Even, he did not depose that bill Ex.DW1/A was issued by he office of the Spice Bill Communication. His testimony is only regarding issuance of communication in the name of Satnam Singh appellant. In the Mamta cross examination, he deposed that he did not bring the record pertaining to 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 36 the bill as no such record was available. He also deposed that there was no signature of any authority on Ex.DW1/A and he had no personal knowledge, thereof. He also did not bring any record to prove that mobile phone was issued in the name of Satnam Singh appellant.
So, in view of the testimony of DW1, it must follow that bill Ex.DW1/A has not been duly proved, which is a computer generated bill not signed by the authority. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly rejected this bill Ex.DW1/A, as that was not been proved through any cogent evidence. So, no benefit can be derived by the appellants from this bill to show that he was apprehended at 09:45 p.m on 11.12.2005 and call was made from his mobile to NCB officials. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the case property was deposited in godown a 04:00 p.m on 12.12.2005, but receipt Ex.P10 was already issued at 02:30 p.m, which according to him showed contradiction in the prosecution case. This contradiction has been reconciled by the NCB as receipt Ex.P10 was issued at 02:30 p.m, while the case property was deposited in the godown at 04:00 p.m. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that as per PW2/A, secret information was received at 2300 hours on 11.12.2005, but in the complaint Ex.P13, it was mentioned that the secret information was received at 06:00 a.m on 12.12.2005. Statement of PW3, is that secret information was received on 11.12.2005. but in the cross examination, he clarified that secret information was received at 11:00 p.m in his office at Sector 2, Chandigarh. PW5 O.P.Sharma already in his cross examination deposed that secret information Ex.PW2/A was given by P.K.Sharma PW3 at 11:00 p.m. All the documents prepared at the place of occurrence would candidly indicate that recovery was effected at about 03:00 a.m on 12.12.2005.
Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 Learned trial Court rightly concluded that there is a typographical I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 37 mistake in para no.2 of the complaint which mentions that secret information was received at 06:00 a.m on 12.12.2005. Learned trial court rightly observed that documents prepared during investigation and the statements on oath of the prosecution witnesses must attain precedence over the complaint which was prepared long after the recovery on 06.06.2005.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that two more persons are involved in the case but they were not arraigned. Regarding this contention, suffice it to say that name of two persons have been disclosed in the disclosure statements and said persons have not been joined in the investigation, but no benefit can be derived by the appellants from this. They are to remain concerned with their own case. Thus, learned trial Court rightly concluded that non joining of those two persons during investigation does not affect the merit of the case.
PW1 Sonu, according to the appellants, was actually culprit from whom the recovery of heroin was made. It is their case that PW1 bribed NCB team that planted the contraband on Satnam Singh appellant. This contention is devoid of merit as appellant was apprehended at about 09:50 p.m and detained on the spot till another Indica car carrying Sonu and three persons reached at about 03:00 a.m. It is highly improbable that the NCB officers would have remained at the place of occurrence with Satnam Singh appellant for 2/3 hours till the arrival of Sonu with contraband. Seal in this case was not handed over to PW1, but that has no bearing on the case, as there is nothing on the record to suggest that the sample parcel and the case property were ever tampered with during investigation as testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW5 during cross examination could not be shattered. Even, there is no suggestion to PW5 that seal was handed over by him to PW3. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that Mukesh Kumar , who was Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 joined during investigation was a stock witness of the NCB, who was on its I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 38 role as daily wager. Reference was made to the testimony of DW3 and DW4 to prove the copy of statement Ex.PW4/A and the panchnama, according to which Mukesh was joined as a witness in case titled NCB v. Lior Avi Ben and others. Regarding this contention, suffice it to say that Mukesh Kumar was not examined during trial, who, on the contrary, was given up as having been won over by the appellants. When this witness was not brought to the box, his joining must not have any bearing on the case of the prosecution.
So, it follows that although Balwinder Singh appellant was not identified by PW3 and PW5, indubitably his statement Ex.P17 under Section 67 was recorded. Apart from that, as already observed, he has propensity towards this type of crime, as he has already been convicted and sentenced in a case under the NDPS Act and his appeal is pending in this Court. That conviction candidly indicates that Balwinder Singh appellant is in the habit of indulging in the sale of the narcotic drugs. Even, his accomplice Satnam Singh appellant, in his confessional statement Ex.PW1/B stated that he was with him. So, if statement Ex.P17 of Balwinder Singh appellant would not have been on the record, in that event, he could be accorded benefit of doubt by holding that the confessional statement of Satnam Singh Ex.PW1/B cannot be used for basing conviction upon Balwinder Singh. So, it follows that if Balwinder Singh appellant would not have escaped from the car bearing No. HR-01J-9639 being driven by Satnam Singh appellant on the date of occurrence, he would have been arrested there and then and tried for possession of four kilograms of heroin. Simply on the basis of his escape from the place of occurrence, he cannot be acquitted of the offence perpetrated by him. If, he would not have fled, he would have been in conscious possession of the heroin. So, now due to his subtle escape from the place of occurrence, he cannot be exonerated of the charge of conscious possession of heroin.
Mamta2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 39
As per notification dated 18.11.2009, the entire recovered material is to be considered for determining the commercial quantity or other quantity. However, the learned trial Court rightly observed that since recovery in the present case was effected on 30.11.2007, notification dated 18.11.2009 cannot be applied retrospectively. Learned trial Court rightly placed reliance upon E.Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau 2008(2) RCR (Crl.) 597, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, it was held that when any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more neutral substance for the purpose of imposition of punishment, it is the content of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance, which shall be taken into consideration.
In the present case, the narcotic drug that was found in possession of appellants, as per the report of Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, Ex.P12, contained 73.5%of dialectical morphin by weight. Since four bags, each containing one kilogram of heroin were recovered, the total narcotic drug would come to 2.94 kilograms i.e more than commercial quantity (250 gms).
As Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh appellant were found in possession of commercial quantity of heroin on the date of occurrence, therefore, they were rightly held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Act read with Section 8, thereof, vide impugned judgment by the learned trial Court that is, hereby, upheld and affirmed, as there is no illegality or impropriety, therein.
Satnam Singh appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default, thereof, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 Act. Learned counsel for the appellant Satnam Singh contended that the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 40 latter may be awarded minimum sentence prescribed under Section 21(c) of the Act. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this contention raised by the learned counsel for Satnam Singh appellant, but we find no merit, therein, as he is guilty of commission of heinous offence and, therefore, no case is made out for reduction of impugned sentence of imprisonment and fine that are, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Balwinder Singh appellant has been sentenced to death for repeating the offence under Section 31 A of the Act. He had been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under the NDPS Act by a special Court at Amritsar vide judgment dated 21.08.2009. His appeal against the judgment supra is pending before this court.
Learned counsel for the NCB contended that the learned trial Court rightly sentenced Balwinder Singh appellant to death. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Balwinder Singh appellant contended that Section 31A of the Act is void being ultra vires of the Constitution of India, as this section imposes a mandatory death penalty and no discretion is left with the Court.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
In Mithu vs. State of Punjab 1983(2) SCC 277, Section 303 of the IPC was held unconstitutional and struck down. It was held that imposition of mandatory sentence of death on commission of murder, while undergoing life imprisonment in jail or outside jail, when on parole, without giving any scope for application of judicial consideration considering the facts and circumstances of each case is harsh, oppressive and unjust. It was held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated by Section 303 Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 41 IPC.
It has been enshrined in Section 354(3) Cr.P.C, 1973 that when the conviction is for offence punishable death or in the alternative imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of ten years, the judgment shall state the reasons for sentence awarded and in case of sentence of death, the special reason for such sentence. While upholding the validity of the death sentence as a punishment for murder, it was ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1980(2) SCC 684, that death sentence can be imposed in a very exceptional class of cases-" the rarest of rare cases". So, section 303 IPC was declared unconstitutional on the principle that as a necessary consequence presumption of mandatory death sentence to a particular class of persons under Section 303 IPC, they are deprived of the right and safeguards under Sections 235(2) and 353(3) of Cr.P.C which is bound to result in injustice. It was held that this is harsh, arbitrary and unjust. It was also held that it excludes judicial discretion. It was further held that such a law must necessarily be stigmatized as arbitrary and oppressive and it was held that Section 303 IPC must be struck down as unconstitutional.
In State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh 2012(3) SCC 346, Hon'ble Apex court also held that Section 27(3) of the Arms Act being drastic from validly worded taken away power of judicial review and not giving any options and prescribing sentence not having any reasonable basis or classification if compared with sentences prescribed under Section 27(1) and 27(2) of the Arms Act is ultra vires the Constitution and void. It was held that legislation, not providing for judicial review of death sentence and imposing mandatory death sentence like Section 27(3), Arms Act is neither just nor fair and falls a foul of due process test. So, Section 27(3) of the Arms Act which provided death sentence was declared void by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 42 judgment (supra).
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2010 Indian Harm Reduction Network vs. Union of India and others with Criminal Writ Petition No. 1790 of 2010 Gulam Mohd. Vs. Vipin Nair Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai and others, decided on 16.06.2011 held that Section 31A of the Act is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it provides for mandatory death penalty. It was held that instead of declaring Section 31A as unconstitutional and void ab initio, the said provision be construed as directory by reading down the expression " shall be punishable with death" as "may be punishable with death" in relation of offence covered under Section 31A of the Act. It was held that the Court will have discretion to impose punishments suffice in Section 31 of the Act for the offences covered by Section 31A. But in appropriate cases, the court can award death penalty for offences covered by Section 31A upon recording reasons, therefor.
Principle laid down in these judgments is that mandatory death sentence is ultra vires of the constitution of India and, therefore, this legislation cannot exist. However, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Indian Harm Reduction Network's case (supra) instead of declaring Section 31A as unconstitutional and void, we construe this Section as directory not mandatory which gives the discretion to the Court to award sentence prescribed under Section 21(c) of the Act or under Section 31A of the Act.
Balwinder Singh appellant is about 40 years of age. Maintaining the death sentence upon him that has been imposed by the learned trial Court shall be very harsh punishment. He should be given opportunity to reform himself through his detention in jail. It is expected that through his Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 detention in jail, he shall be pushed to a corner to realize his guilt and it is I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 5 of 2012 43 expected that through his detention in jail, he may attain goodness, wherewith, he will affect the rest of the man kind.
So, in these circumstances, we are of the view that the punishment prescribed under Section 21(c) of the Act shall meet the ends of justice that shall be a condign punishment. Accordingly, the death sentence imposed upon Balwinder Singh appellant vide impugned order of sentence is set aside and in its place, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay fine of ` 1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Act. The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.
Except for this modification in the order of sentence, the appeal of Balwinder Singh appellant bearing No. CRA No. D-365-DB of 2012 is, hereby, dismissed. Also appeal of Satnam Singh appellant bearing No.D- 371-DB of 2012 is, hereby, dismissed. Reference No. 5 of 2012 submitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence upon Balwinder Singh appellant is declined.
(S.P.Bangarh) (S.S.Saron)
Judge Judge
08.07.2013
mamta
1. Whether the Reporters of the Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes Mamta 2013.09.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh