Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.384-SB of 1998, filed by Satta @ Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Amrik Singh, and Jagdev Singh, appellants, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 16.4.1998, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, vide which he convicted the accused/appellants, for the offence, punishable under 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 rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year each, Criminal Appeal No.58-SB of 2001, filed by Bagga Singh, accused/appellant, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 8.12.2000, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, vide which he convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year, and Criminal Appeal No.321-SB of 2001, filed by Balwinder Singh, accused/appellant, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 1.3.2001, Crl. Appeal No.58-SB of 2001 & Crl. Appeal No.321-SB of 2001 rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, vide which he convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year, all relating to FIR No.67, dated 17.4.1988, P.S. Dirba, for having been found in possession of 110 bags, each containing 38 kgs. Poppy- husk, (falling within the ambit of commercial quantity), without any permit or licence.

9. Since, Balwinder Singh, accused, was declared Proclaimed Offender, when the case was fixed for arguments, and Bagga Singh, accused, was declared Proclaimed Offender, at the initial stage, when they were arrested, the supplementary challans, referred to above, against them, were later on, presented, and separate trials, were held against them, as stated above.

10. Devinder Singh, accused, could not be arrested, and is still Proclaimed Offender.

11. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, Satta @ Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Amrik Singh, Jagdev Singh, Bagga Singh, and Balwinder Singh, accused, were convicted and sentenced, by the trial Court, vide separate judgments of conviction, and orders of sentence, referred to above, whereas, Jagminder Singh, accused, was acquitted.

12. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgments of conviction, and the orders of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeals, were Crl. Appeal No.58-SB of 2001 & Crl. Appeal No.321-SB of 2001 filed by Satta @ Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Amrik Singh, Jagdev Singh, Bagga Singh, and Balwinder Singh, appellants.

13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case, carefully.

14. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, contended that the Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, were not arrested, at the spot. He further submitted that, according to the prosecution story, they succeeded in running away, taking the shelter of darkness, and, therefore, their identity as the perpetrators of crime, could not be established. He further submitted that, even no identification parade, was conducted, by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, so as to connect them, with the instant case. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the trial Court, was wrong in recording conviction, and awarding sentence, to these accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It is evident from the statements of Ajit Singh, ASI, (PW-3), and Jagjiwan Singh, ASI (PW-2), in Sessions case No.18/31.1.89, 45 of 5.8.92 and 36 of 1996, that the truck being driven by Balwinder Singh, accused was signalled to stop, and the same was stopped. It was further stated by them, that thereafter the truck was encircled. Jagjiwan Singh, ASI (PW-2), a recovery witness, in clear-cut terms, stated that when the whereabouts of the accused, were being enquired, Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, who were sitting in the body of the truck, succeeded in running away. They were seen in the torch light. He further stated that he Crl. Appeal No.58-SB of 2001 & Crl. Appeal No.321-SB of 2001 identified the accused, who succeeded in running away. He further stated that the police party chased them, but they could not be apprehended. The recovery, in this case, was effected, at about 4.00 AM, in the month of April, 1988. At 4.00 AM, in the month of April, it could not be said to be too much darkness. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it is proved that the police party, had sufficient time, to recognize the accused, who were the occupants of the truck. It was not that they had only a glimpse of the occupants of the truck, when it was moving. Since, the truck was stopped, it was not at all impossible for Jagjiwan Singh, ASI (PW-2), to recognize the accused, namely Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, who succeeded in running away. During the course of his cross-examination, Jagjiwan Singh, ASI (PW-2), was put a suggesstion that he could not identify the accused, namely Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, but he stoutly denied the same. In case, Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, were not present, in the body of the truck, when the same was stopped, and were falsely implicated, in this case, they could move an application, before the Court concerned, that their identification parade be ordered to be held. They did not move any application, in that regard. It means that they did not dispute their identity, as the perpetrators of crime. The identity of the accused, namely Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, was duly established, as the perpetrators of crime. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

Crl. Appeal No.58-SB of 2001 & Crl. Appeal No.321-SB of 2001

15. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused were in conscious possession of the poppy-husk, referred to above. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Balwinder Singh, accused, was the driver of the truck. Two accused were sitting by his side, and the remaining five accused, were sitting in the body of the truck, on the back side. It was a big quantity of poppy-husk, which was being carried in the truck. It was not a small quantity of poppy-husk, which could escape the notice of the accused, who were the occupants of the truck. It was within the special means of knowledge of the accused, as to how, 110 bags, containing poppy-husk, were lying in the body of the truck, and to which destination the same, were being transported. It was not a small quantity of poppy-husk, which was being carried by the accused, for the purpose of consumption. Such a big haul of poppy-husk, was being carried by the accused, in the truck, for the purpose of sale, on commercial basis, for minting money. Since, these facts were within the special means of knowledge of the accused, they were required to explain the same. However, no explanation, was furnished by them. The possession of the accused, and their control over the bags, containing poppy-husk, was, thus, proved. Once, the possession of the accused, and their control over the bags, containing poppy-husk, was proved, 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 statutory presumption, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, the appellants failed to rebut Crl. Appeal No.58-SB of 2001 & Crl. Appeal No.321-SB of 2001 that presumption, either during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by leading defence evidence. No plea was taken up by Balwinder Singh, accused, driver of the truck, that he was carrying the poppy-husk therein, as per the command of the owner. No plea was taken up by the other accused, that they took the lift in the truck, as they had no other means of transport, to reach their village. No plea was taken by Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, that they were only the labourers, engaged by the owner, or the driver of the truck, to load the gunny bags, containing poppy-husk, and unload the same, at a particular destination. No plea was taken up, by any of the accused, that they did not know, as to what was contained in the bags, lying in the truck. The only plea, which was taken up, by the accused, was that they were falsely implicated, in the instant case. The accused, however, failed to rebut the statutory presumption, under Sectiosn 54 and 35 of the Act. 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 :-