Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Manjit Singh @ Raju vs State Of Punjab on 23 May, 2014
lK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1902 OF 2009
MANJIT SINGH @ RAJU Appel
lant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respo
ndents(s)
O R D E R
FIR NO. 101 dated 28.8.99 was registered against the appellant at the Police Station Mahal pur under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and P sychotropic Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"). As per the said FIR, 1 kg of opium was recovered from the scooter of the appellan t. The matter was investigated thereafter on th e basis of which challan was submitted before the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur. Charge was framed under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and the appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 9.1.2001 and he was directed to undergo sentence of rigorous Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Mansukhani imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh and, Date: 2014.05.26 17:06:49 IST Reason: in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
1The appellant filed appeal against this conviction in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was also dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 30th January, 2008. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the appellant. By the time this appeal came up for hearing, the appellant had served substantial part of the sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, he was released on bail.
Without adverting to the various facets of the defence, the neat submission made by Mr. Vineet Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that the entire recovery of the contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant is shrouded in mystery and in any case, the mandatory procedure as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not adhered to. He further pointed out that there were material contradictions in the statements made by different police officers who appeared as witnesses in support of the prosecution case. In the first instance, he pointed out that Constable Surinder Pal, who appeared as PW 2 stated at one place that only one seal was affixed on the sample which was square in shape and it bore the seal "MS" and did not contain any stamp or initial of any Officer. However, Mr. Ashwani, Malkhana Head Constable who appeared as PW 3 in his cross examination mentioned that DSP Gurshankar had put in his initial on sample and case property and the Magistrate had also initiailed the case property and the sample. According to 2 Mr. Bhagat, this raises doubt about the genuineness on the sample which was collected and sent for chemical examination.
Mr. Bhagat has also submitted that statement of the appellant was recorded as Exhibit ’PD’. While issuing notice under Section 50 of the Act, he was asked whether he wanted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He answered in the affirmative by expressing his desire to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. However, PW 4 ASI Charan Singh in his statement mentioned that he reposed faith in the police party and because of this reason, the Gazetted Officer was not called and he was searched by the Police Party.
We have gone through Exh. PD which states otherwise wherein the appellant had in fact exercised his option to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer. However, admittedly, no Gazetted Officer was asked to remain present at the time of search and to cover this lapse, the police officers gave false statement, which is contrary to the record.
Inspector Navjot Singh, who appeared as PW 7 has stated in his deposition that the appellant was given offer whether he wanted his search as well as search of his scooter before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but he reposed faith in him, i.e. PW 7 and that was the reason that search was made by him. He further stated that after the search when the opium of 1 Kg was recovered and 10 gm thereof was put in a 3 separate seal which was drawn as a sample, DSP Amarjit Singh was requested to come to the spot and he had arrived there and further proceedings were conducted in his presence. However, when we come to the statement of DSP Amarjit Singh who appeared as PW 6, the matter turns more curious. In his statement, he has stated that the Inspector Navjot Singh and his persons asked the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but he reposed faith in him. PW 6 states categorically that appellant was searched by Inspector Navjot Singh in his presence whereas Navjot Singh has stated that appellant was searched at the time when Amarjit Singh was not present but was called at the spot later. Thus, there are so many material contradictions and the officers have given different versions. Moreover, as already pointed out above, in his statement, the appellant had categorically stated that he wanted to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and contrary to the said statement, the appellant was searched by the SHO and the police party only and the police has tried to make out a case as if the appellant had not made a statement that he wanted to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer which statement of the police officers is clearly false and it is contrary to Exhibit PD.
For this reason, we are of the opinion that the contradictions which are material in nature and go to the root of the matter falsify the prosecution story and it cannot be said that the case has been proved against the appellant. More so, there is breach of 4 mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged.
........................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ........................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI MAY 23, 2014.
5ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1902/2009 MANJIT SINGH @ RAJU Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents(s) Date : 23/05/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI (VACATION BENCH) For Appellant(s) Mr. K.G. Bhagat, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant K. Sud, AAG Ms. Banita Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Dabas, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M. S. NEGI) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file) 6 7