Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By the said judgment, appellants were convicted under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Act and were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year each under both the Sections separately.

However both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar appeared as DW2 and DW3, respectively, in the trial and both were ordered to be tried summarily for giving false evidence under Section 344 Cr.P.C. by issuing notice separately.

Further submitted that while convicting the appellants, trial Court opined that Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar deposed falsely. Then ordered to issue notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. After notice, no further action. Opportunity was to be given to the petitioners, namely, Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar to present their case. Suo motu, while convicting the appellants, without affording opportunity to the petitioners, they were not convicted and sentenced.

5 kgs heroin was recovered from the appellants and if the officials of NCB were to implicate the appellants simply to raise figure work, then 20 grams or 50 grams heroin could easily be planted. There was no idea to plant 5 kgs heroin, worth crores in the market.

While disposing of the main case, trial Court opined that show cause notice be issued to Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar under Section 344 Cr.P.C. to explain as to why they should not be tried summarily for giving false evidence under Section 344 Cr.P.C. After notice, no further action by the Court. Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar are to appear before the Court and they are to present their case. After evidence of the parties, Court is to opine as to whether they gave false evidence intentionally and what action is to be taken.

In Gurmej Singh's case (supra), conviction was under Sections 395/450/342 IPC. Certain adverse observations made against defence witness without issuance of notice to him. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that said observations are liable to be quashed.

In the present case also, trial Court opined that Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar knowingly and willfully gave false evidence. Then ordered to issue notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. for their trial for giving false evidence. As discussed earlier, Surinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Riar are to give reply to the notice. Opportunity is to be given to them to lead evidence as to whether they gave false evidence knowingly and willfully. After that, then order is to be passed.