Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 17.7.1997 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby he acquitted Virsa Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Sher Singh and Ramesh alias Maheshi, of the charge under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. To shorn off all unnecessary details, the prosecution version may be projected thus : On the intervening night of 20/21.8.1994, a Police Party headed by Jasrath Singh, SI, the then S.H.O. of Police Station Garhi, happened to be present at T-point of roads leading to Hans-dehar and Titoli from Data Singh Wala in connection with patrolling and checking of vehicles. One Bawa Singh, Sarpanch of Village Data Singh Wala was also present with him. Another Police Party organized by Ram Kishan, ASI also came there on a motor-cycle. Ram Kishan, ASI informed the above mentioned Sub-Inspector that he had received a secret information that a truck bearing registration No. PUX-8825 loaded with the bags of poppy husk and vegetables was approaching from Narwana side. Accused-Sher Singh was driving the truck and accused Ramesh alias Maheshi was sitting by his side. A Maruti Van bearing registration No. HR-8/3251 was moving ahead of the truck to avoid the checking of the latter by the Police Party. He also informed that both these vehicles will go towards Daben-kheri. The Sub-Inspector, treating this information to be reliable, formed a raiding party and set up a picket at that place to stop and check the vehicles referred to above. Meanwhile, the Maruti Van came there which was made to stop. Accused-Lakhbir Singh was driving the Maruti Van. In the meantime, the above mentioned truck also came there. The same was also made to stop. Two young boys jumped out of the truck and ran towards the fields though Virsa Singh accused was captured at the spot. On interrogation, he disclosed the identity of those two escapists to be Sher Singh and Ramesh. The aforementioned Sub-Inspector served notice, Exhibit PG to accused Virsa Singh and informed him that he has suspicion that there was poppy husk or some other contraband in the truck. He told Virsa Singh that he wants to take search of the truck and if he was reluctant to offer the truck for search by him, he could opt to give his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. In his reply,Exhibit PH, he offered to get his truck searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The Sub-Inspector sent message to S.P.Jind, who directed Shri H.K.Kalsi, the then D.S.P, Safidon to reach at the place of recovery. On receipt of such message, the D.S.P reached there.

6. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defence counsel, the accused were acquitted of the charge, as noticed at the outset, by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the State of Haryana moved Criminal Misc. No. 37-MA of 1998 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.7.1997. Vide order dated 18.2.1998, leave to appeal regarding Virsa Singh only was granted.

7. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, valiantly urged before us that the trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the accused especially when there is huge recovery of 40 bags of poppy husk, each containing 48 kgs., which by no stretch of imagination, can be planted. He further pressed into service that as is borne out from the prosecution evidence, the provisions of Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the Act were complied with by the Investigating Officer. He further canvassed at the bar that the Investigating Officer had informed the Superintendent of Police, Jind to depute a Gazetted Officer at the spot enabling him to carry out search of the accused as well as truck bearing registration No. PUX-8825 and the latter gave a direction to D.S.P., Safidon to reach the spot so that the Investigating Officer may take search of the accused as well as the truck in his presence. He further puts that on receipt of such direction, the aforesaid D.S.P., a most superior officer of the Police Department of District Jind visited the spot and the search was carried out in his presence and he affixed his seal on the case property as well as the samples and thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the accused to contend that the mandatory provisions of the Act were not adhered to.

12. As emerges out of the evidence of Jasrath Singh (sic), grounds of arrest were not supplied by him to the accused Virsa Singh or Lakhbir Singh. It implies that he did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Act.

13. As would be apparent from the deposition of Phool Kumar, PW-3, as also his affidavit,Exh. PD, samples were despatched on 7.9.1994 to the Director,Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban through Hans Raj, PW-4, who has also lent sustenance to this version vide his affidavit,Exh. PE. It is worth pointing out here that the alleged recovery is stated to have taken place on the intervening night of 20th/21st of August, 1994. It means that the samples were despatched after sixteen days whereas the same were required to be despatched at the earliest possible so as to rule out the possibility of their being tampered with. The prosecution has not assigned any cogent reason for withholding despatch of samples for such a long time.

14. As transpires from the solemn affirmations made by Ram Kishan,ASI as well as Jasrath Singh, PWs, no intimation regarding the arrest of the accused persons or recovery of poppy husk was sent to the superior police officers immediately. Section 57 of the Act lays down that ''whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.'' Thus, obviously, the Investigator acted in derogation of the provisions of Section 57 ibid by not submitting a full report in the stated terms to the immediate official superior within the period as contemplated by the Act. Still worse, Jasrath Singh, PW-8 has stated in no uncertain terms that Virsa Singh (accused) submitted his reply, Exh PH to the effect that his search should be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and that then he (Jasrath Singh) sent V.T. to S.P.Jind from his gypsy and that since D.S.P, Narwana was not available being on leave, he directed his Police Station to contact S.P.Jind on V.T and the Police Station contacted the S.S.P and that at about 4.30 P.M., Hemant Kumar Kalsan, the then D.S.P., Safidon reached the place of recovery. Ostensibly, the accused Virsa Singh had opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. There is nothing on the record to show that he was ready to get his person searched from the aforementioned D.S.P. As per the mandates of Section 50 of the Act,'' if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the Departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. Jasrath Singh (sic.) has not given any reason for calling a Police Officer for the purpose of carrying out the personal search of the accused. In re: Jasbir Singh @ Shaka versus State of Punjab, 1996 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 55, on 21.3.1992, HC Hukam Chand was posted in Police Station, Ding and on the date, he was present at Ding Mor along with SI/SHO Amrik Singh. A truck bearing No. GJ-08T-4040 came from the side of Fatehabad. The same was intercepted by the Police Party headed by SI/SHO Amrik Singh. There were two occupants in the said truck. Suspecting some narcotic substance in the truck, SI Amrik Singh called the DSP by sending a wireless message and Yogender Nehra, DSP arrived there at about 7.30 P.M. In the presence of the DSP, 160 bags of poppy straw were recovered. A Division Bench of this High Court was pleased to observe that '' in view of the factual position that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S Act have not been complied with by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S Act cannot be sustained.'' To our mind, the facts of the case at hand bear semblance with Jasbir Singh @ Shaka's case (supra).