Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Singh Son Of Darshan Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.967-SB of 2004
Date of Decision:September 19, 2008
1. Gurinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Vidya
Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
2. Lehmber Singh son of Lahora Singh, resident of Chak
Narial, Police Station ;Mahal Pur, District Hoshiarpur.
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent.
---
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal filed by Gurinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, and Lehmber Singh son of Lahora Singh,, through Jail, is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 20.04.2004, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, vide which he convicted the accused( now appellants ), for the offence, punishable under Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 2 Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each, for having been found in possession of 72 bags, each containing 30 KGS of poppy husk, without any permit or licence.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 11.03.1993, Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, along with other police officials held a picket at the bridge of drain, Kanpur, on the basis of secret information of Kamaljit Singh, DSP. In the meanwhile, Avtar Chand alias Tara Chand an independent witness came there, who was associated with the Police party. At about 8.00 PM, a truck bearing registration No. PJQ-4255 came from the side of village Nagar, at a fast speed. Jasbir Singh, H.C, who was standing at the bridge of village Nagar, gave a signal to stop the truck. The driver of the truck, however, crossed that point. The truck was, however, captured with the help of the police officials. Lehmber Singh, driver and Narinder Singh, who was sitting on the bags, loaded in the truck in question, were apprehended at the spot, whereas, one person, who was sitting by the side of the driver, in the cabin, succeeded in Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 3 running away. The name of that person came to be known as Gurinder Singh. The search of the truck was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof 72 bags were found lying therein. Each bag was found containing 30 Kgs poppy husk. A sample of 250 grams of poppy husk, was taken out of each of the bags, and the remaining poppy husk was kept in the same bags. The bags, and the samples, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. The truck, its registration certificate, tarpaulin, rope etc. were also taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. The site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Kamaljit Singh Dhillon, DSP, reached the spot. Lajpat Singh, S.I. presented before him the information in writing Ex.PG, which was attested by him ( Kamaljit Singh Dhillon, DSP ). Narinder Singh and Lehmber Singh, accused were arrested, at the spot. Gurinder Singh, accused, who succeeded in running away, was arrested later on. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 4
3. On their appearance, in the Court, accused Gurinder Singh and Lehmber Singh were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. Narender Singh, accused, however, absented from the Court and was declared proclaimed offender.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Pal Singh, ASI, (PW-1), who was posted as MHC at the relevant time, in the Police Station, and who tendered his affidavit Ex.PA, Nirmal Singh, H.C. ( PW-2 ), who took the sample parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner, and after deposit of the same, handed over the receipt to MHC, Lachman Dass Tehang, ASI, ( PW-3 ), who arrested accused Lehmber Singh on 07.01.2002 as he had been declared proclaimed offender, Lajpat Singh, SI, ( PW-4 ), who investigated the case and made a consistent statement, with regard to the date, time and place of recovery, Jasbir Singh, ASI ( PW-5 ), a witness to the recovery, Varinder Singh, Junior Assistant, office of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar, ( PW-6 ), who deposed that Lehmber Singh son of Lahora Singh, resident of Sutlej Market, G.T. Road, Jalandhar was the owner of the truck, as per the Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 5 registration certificate Ex.P-74, at the relevant time, Pal Singh, ASI, ( PW-7 ), who tendered his affidavit Ex.PA and Harbhajan Singh, Inspector, ( PW-8 ) , who was the SHO Police Station, Phillaur, at the relevant time, and before whom, Lajpat Singh, SI, produced the case property, and the sample parcels, as also the accused, who after verifying the investigation and the case property, affixed his own seal, and prepared the sample impression of the seal. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PX, and closed the same.
5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, did not lead any evidence, in their defence.
6. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.
7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants.
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 6
8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, vehemently, contended that the identity of Gurinder Singh, accused, was not established, as the perpetrator of crime, as he allegedly escaped from the spot. He further submitted that no police official of the police party, was able to identify him, at the spot. He further submitted that no identification parade was held, by the Investigating Officer, to pin point his identity, as the perpetrator of crime. He further submitted that, even no evidence was produced, by the prosecution to prove that he was the person, who escaped from the spot. He further submitted that, as such, Gurinder Singh, accused was not connected with the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It is evident from Ex.PG, the report which was submitted by Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, before Kamaljit Singh, DSP, at the spot that the truck bearing registration No. PJQ-4255 when came there, was signalled to stop. The driver of the truck, however, crossed the point. When the truck was captured, Gurinder Singh, accused was very much sitting therein. It was at that time that Lajpat Singh, Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 7 Sub Inspector, identified him properly. It was, thereafter, that he succeeded in running away from the spot. It was not that Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, only had a glimpse of Gurinder Singh, accused and, therefore, was unable to properly identify him. It must have taken sufficient time, for the police party, to chase the truck and then to capture it. Since Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector saw Gurinder Singh, accused, while sitting in the truck, before he escaped, for sufficient time, his identity, could not have been forgotten by him. It was, under these circumstances that he identified accused, Gurinder Singh, also, in the Court, as the one who succeeded in running away, from the spot. Even Jasbir Singh, ASI, a witness to the recovery, also identified Gurinder Singh, accused, at the spot. He also identified him, in the Court. It was not that Gurinder Singh, accused was sitting in the body of the truck on the bags, containing poppy husk, and he jumped therefrom, on the back side and succeeded in running away. He was sitting, by the side of the driver of the truck. Under these circumstances, there could be no difficulty, in recognizing accused Gurinder Singh, by Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector. Had he not been identified, at the spot, his name would not have figured in Ex.PG, the report, submitted by Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, before Kamaljit Singh, DSP, at the place of recovery itself. Since Gurinder Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 8 Singh, accused, was identified at the spot, by Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector and ASI Jasbir Singh, and he was also duly identified, in the Court, as the one, who escaped from the spot, there was no necessity of holding identification parade, during the course of investigation, by the Investigating Officer. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect that the identity of Gurinder Singh, accused, was not established, as the perpetrator of crime, therefore, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that though an independent witness, in the name of Avtar Chand alias Tara Chand, was joined at the time of search and seizure, yet he was not examined, as a result whereof, it could be said that the best evidence, in possession of the prosecution, was withheld by it. It is, no doubt, true that though this independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time, when the search and seizure were effected, yet he joined hands with the accused, during the course of trial. It is also, no doubt, true that this witness was given up as having been won over by the accused, by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, vide separate statement on 18.04.2002. The Public Prosecutor, for the State, is the master of the case. It is for him, to decide, as to which Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 9 witness he wants to examine, and which witness he does not want to examine. The Public Prosecutor for the State, exercised the discretion, vested in him, in giving up Avtar Chand alias Tara Chand, independent witness, as won over by the accused, on the basis of sound judicial principles. It could not be said that the discretion exercised by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, in giving up Avtar Chand alias Tara Chand, as won over by the accused, was, in any way, arbitrary or capricious. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is creditworthy, and inspires confidence, in the mind of the Court. In Masalti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 (S.C.) 202, it was held that it is, undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution, to lay before the Court, all material witnesses, available to it, whose evidence is necessary for unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to lay down it, as a general rule, that every witness, must be examined, even though his evidence, may not be very material or, even if, it is known that he has been won over or terrorized. In Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) RCR 146, a Division Bench of this Court, held that no adverse inference can be drawn, when the only independent witness, was given up by the prosecution, as won over by the accused. It was further held, in the said authority, that the panch witnesses, being human beings, are quite Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 10 exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating, threats and inducements and giving up of the public witnesses, as won over, is fully justified, in the present day situation, prevailing in the society. In Karnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 Criminal Law Journal, 1218, a Division Bench of this Court, held that where the independent witness, was won over by the accused, and only the officials witnesses, were examined, who were considered to be not interested persons, their evidence cannot be doubted, on the ground of their official status. The principle of law, laid down, in the said authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that though according to the prosecution story, Kamaljit Singh, DSP, reached the spot, yet none of the documents, bears his signatures. He further submitted that this clearly proved that Kamaljit Singh, DSP never went to the spot, but he was introduced later on, just with a view to show that everything was done in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Admittedly, as per the Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 11 prosecution story, DSP Kamaljit Singh was not present at the time of search and seizure. He came to the spot much later. As soon as, he came to the spot, Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, presented before him, report Ex.PG, which was seen by him and duly signed. Since Kamaljit Singh, DSP, was not present, at the time of search and seizure, the question of existence of his signatures, on the documents, which were prepared by the Investigating Officer, did not at all arise. It, therefore, could not be said that Kamaljit Singh, DSP, did not reach the spot and was introduced lateron. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that when the case property was produced, in the Court, the same did not bear any seals and the chits containing the particulars of the case. He further submitted that some of the bags, contained only 10 Kgs poppy husk each and some of the bags contained 12 Kgs poppy husk each. He further submitted that, as such, the case property produced in the Court, did not stand connected with the case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The recovery in this case was effected on 11.03.1993, whereas Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, PW4 was Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 12 examined on 27.09.2002 i.e. after a period of nine years and Jasbir Singh, ASI, PW-5 was examined in chief on 07.03.2003 and cross-examined on 17.01.2004 i.e. after a period of more than ten years. The case property remained lying in the malkhana, where the case properties of other cases, were also lying. On account of shortage of space, in the malkhana, the case properties of the cases, cannot be stacked properly. If, on account of irresponsible handling, lapse of sufficient time, between the date of recovery, and production of the case property, in the Court, and during the course of transit, seals on some of the bags stood broken and some of the bags containing poppy husk underwent the process of decay that did not mean that the case property, produced in the Court, did not stand connected with the case. Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector ( PW4 ), in clear-cut terms, stated that the bags, containing poppy husk, produced, in the Court, were the same, as were recovered from the truck, being driven by one of the accused. The only obligation, upon the prosecution is to produce the case property in the Court and get it identified, from the prosecution witnesses, so as to connect the same with the case. In the instant case, the prosecution produced the witnesses, who identified the case property, as the same, as was recovered from the accused. Under these circumstances, the case Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 13 property produced, in the Court, stood duly connected with the case. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that, in fact, no recovery of poppy husk was effected from the possession of the accused, but they were falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that when the case property was produced, at the time of the evidence of Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector ( PW-4 ), he stated that some of the bags were containing wood-straw. He ,however, stated that at the time of recovery, the bags contained poppy husk. From the said statement of Lajpat Singh,Sub Inspector(PW- 4), the Counsel for the appellants, wanted to build up the case, that it was only a managed affair and no recovery was effected. It may be stated here, that the submission of the Counsel for the appellants is not correct. In the first instance, it may be stated here that Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, could not be said to be an expert, to opine that some of the bags produced, in the Court, at the time of his evidence, contained wood-straw. It was the Chemical Examiner, who after analysis of the samples, could opine, as to whether, the contents thereof, constituted poppy husk or not. The visual examination of the contents of Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 14 some of the bags by Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, could not lead to a positive result, as to whether, the same constituted poppy husk, or not. It may be stated here, that Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, in the same breath, stated that when the recovery was effected, the bags contained poppy husk. No reliance, on the statement of Lajpat Singh,Sub Inspector (PW-4) that some bags contained wood straw, could be placed. He might have made a statement, in the Court, just with a view to help the accused. Ex.PX is the report of the Chemical Examiner. As many as 72 sample parcels, were sent to the Chemical Examiner on 20.04.1993, whereas, the recovery was effected in this case on 11.03.1993. After analysis, the Chemical Examiner, came to the conclusion, that the contents of the sample parcels, constituted poppy straw. This Court, is , therefore, to rely upon the report of the Chemical Examiner, which can be said to be conclusive, to prove, as to whether, the recovered material constituted the poppy husk, or something else. In the face of the report Ex.PX of the Chemical Examiner, the statement of Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, on the aforesaid point, pales into insignificance. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 15
14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that the conscious possession of the appellants, in relation to the alleged bags, containing poppy husk, was not proved. He further submitted that one accused, as per the prosecution story, was the driver of the truck, and the other accused namely Gurinder Singh, was sitting by his side. He further submitted that the mere fact that the accused were travelling in the truck, did not at all mean that they were in conscious possession of the poppy husk. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Varinder Singh, Junior Assistant, Office of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar, appeared as PW-6 and he stated that, as per the registration certificate Ex.P-74, the truck, in question was in the name of Lehmber Singh son of Lohara Singh, resident of Sutlej Market, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. It means that Lehmber Singh was the driver, as well as the owner of the truck, in which 72 bags, each containing 30 KGS of poppy husk,were being transported, whereas, Gurinder Singh, accused, was sitting by his side. Had it been a small quantity of poppy husk lying in the truck, the matter would have been different. It was within the special means of knowledge of the accused, as to how 72 bags, containing poppy husk, were found in the truck, and to which Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 16 destination the same were being transported. The accused, however, failed to explain the circumstances, aforesaid. It, therefore, could not be said that the same escaped the notice of the accused. The accused were, thus, found in possession of and in control over the bags, containing poppy-husk, lying in the truck. Once the possession of the accused, and their control over the contraband, was proved, then statutory presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, operated against them, that they were in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, it was for them, to rebut the presumption, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, the appellants, failed to rebut that presumption, either during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by leading defence evidence. In these circumstances, the trial Court was right, in holding that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 54 of the Act ibid reads as under :-
"Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act, in respect of:-
a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance;
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 17
b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated;
c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controller substance; or
d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily."
14-A. Section 35 which relates to the presumption of culpable mental state, is extracted as under :-
"Presumption of culpable mental state:- (1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 18 Explanation:- In this section "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability."
14-B. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 54 and 35, referred to hereinbefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that once an accused, is found to be in possession of a contraband, he is presumed to have committed the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act, until the contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid, the Court shall presume the existence of mental state, for the commission of an offence, and it is for the accused to prove otherwise. In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:-
The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law.
Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 19 Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles."
14-C. The facts of Madan Lal's case (supra) in brief, were that accused Manjit Singh was driving the Car and the remaining four accused, were sitting therein. One steel container (dolu) in a black coloured bag, was recovered from the said Car, which contained 820 gms. charas. All the accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, holding that they were found in conscious possession of charas, despite the fact, that one of the accused, admitted his conscious possession, of the contraband. The Apex Court held that the trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain, as to how they were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex Court upheld the conviction, and sentence, awarded to the accused. In the instant case, the accused failed to explain, as to how, 72 bags, containing poppy husk, referred to above, were found in the truck, which was being driven by one of them. The facts of Madan Lal's case (supra) are similar and identical to the facts of the present case. The principle of law, laid down, in Madan Lal's case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, in their statements, under Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 20 Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellants, took up the plea, only of false implication. They did not take up the plea, that they did not know the contents of the bags, lying therein. Gurinder Singh, accused, did not take up the plea that he merely took a lift in the truck, as he knew the driver thereof, and did not know, as to what was contained, in the bags. As stated above, the accused, thus, miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above. Thus, their conscious possession, in respect of the contraband, was proved, and, as such, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab 2003(4) RCR ( Criminal )407, and Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2003(4) RCR ( Criminal ) 431 in support of his contention, that the accused, were not in conscious possession of the bags, containing poppy husk, lying in the truck. The facts of the aforesaid authorities, are completely distinguishable, from the facts of the present case. In those cases, the possession of the accused, in respect of the contraband, was not proved. Not only this, the accused in those cases, were acquitted on a number of grounds, and not only on one ground, that they were not in conscious possession Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 21 of the poppy husk. In the instant case, Lehmber Singh,accused, as stated above, was the owner of the truck, in which the poppy husk, was being transported, at the relevant time, whereas Gurinder Singh, was sitting by his side. It was a big haul of poppy husk, which was being transported in the truck. It, therefore, could not escape their notice. Their possession, in respect thereof, thus, stood duly proved. As stated above, their conscious possession was proved. No plea was taken up by the accused, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that they did not know as to which destination, the poppy husk was being transported. Gurinder Singh, accused, also did not take up the plea that he was engaged as a labourer by Lehmber Singh, owner of the truck, for loading the bags, containing poppy husk, in the same and for unloading the same at the specified destination. No plea was also taken up by Gurinder Singh, accused that he being a friend of Lehmber Singh, accused was asked by him, to sit in the truck and give him company and, as such, he sat with him, but he did not know, as to what was lying in the body of the truck. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellants, from the aforesaid authorities, referred to, in this paragraph. Even otherwise, in view of the principle of law, laid down in Madan Lal's case ( supra ), decided by the Apex Court, any principle Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 22 of law, to the contrary, on the same point, laid down in Gurdip Singh's and Karamjit Singh's cases ( supra ), decided by this Court, shall not hold the field. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the authorities, cited by him, and referred to above. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld.
18. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 20.04.2004, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, keeping in view the applicability of Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 23 the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
19. No specific order was passed regarding the confiscation of the truck in question. The trial Court is directed to initiate the proceedings regarding the confiscation of truck, complete the same within a period of three months, and send a report, to this Court, immediately, thereafter.
20. Copy of the judgment shall also be sent to the Director General of Police, Punjab, to inquire into the matter, as to, under what circumstances, Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector, while appearing in the witness box as PW-4, made a statement, that some of the bags, produced at the time of his evidence, contained wood-straw. He should also get examined the matter, from the angle, as to whether the poppy straw from the bags, was mis-appropriated by the Moharrir Head Constables, at the relevant time(s) or any other Officials/Officers, from the date of deposit of the same, in the malkhana, until it was produced in the Court on 27.09.2002. After holding detailed inquiry, if he finds Lajpat Singh, Sub Inspector or any other Official(s)/Officer(s) guilty of mis- conduct, strict action shall be taken against them, in accordance with the provisions of law, and the compliance Crl. Appeal No.967-SB of 2004 24 report shall be sent to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment positively.
20. The Registry shall keep track of the matter, and put up the action taken report, if received, within the time frame. Even if, the same is not received, within the time frame, the matter shall be brought to the notice of the Court.
September 19, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE