Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants.

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

11. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the story of the prosecution, was highly improbable. He further submitted that, independent witness namely Amarjit Singh, who was joined, at the time of the alleged recovery, was not examined, but was given up, as having been won over by the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, as a result whereof, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. He further submitted that, the accused, were not found in conscious possession of the poppy husk, and, as such, they did not commit any offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act. He further submitted that the CFSL Form, was not prepared, at the spot, and, as such, it could not be said with certainty, that none tampered with the samples, until the same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. He further submitted that both the accused, belonged to different villages. He further submitted that, secret information, which was received, was not sent, to the officer superior. He further submitted that, in fact, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was constructing a kothi, at Nabha, and, there was a dispute, with regard to payment of wages with Balbir Singh, accused, who worked as a mason, as a result whereof, he was falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that the alleged recovery, was effected, in the area of Samana, whereas, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was posted, at Nabha, at a distance of about 40 kms, and, as such, it was not known, as to why, he was allegedly called, to the spot, and, why the Deputy Superintendent of Police, posted at Samana, was not called to the spot. He further submitted that the bags, containing poppy husk, were allegedly concealed under the bags, containing cement powder, and, as such, it could not be said, that any of the accused, was aware of the same. He further submitted that, the accused, were falsely implicated, in the instant case.

14. Coming to the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that no CFSL Form, was prepared, at the spot, but, was fabricated, later on, as a result whereof, the link evidence became incomplete, it may be stated here, that there is no provision of law, that CFSL Form, should be prepared, at the spot. The CFSL Form, is prepared, while sending the sample parcels, to the office of the Chemical Examiner. In the instant case, the CFSL Form, was prepared, when the samples, were sent, to the office of the Chemical Examiner. This fact, is evident, from the report exhibit PM of the Chemical Examiner. Sufficient evidence, was led, by the prosecution, to the effect, that none tampered with the sample parcels, until the same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. In this view of the matter, non-preparation of CFSL Form, at the spot, did not at all cast any doubt, on the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.