RADHEY SHAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 8/2/1999 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 159-SB/1996 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 2/2/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 24/1995. By the impugned order Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under the provisions of Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and in the event of default in the payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The prosecution version is that on 18/2/1995 SI/sho Baljit Singh along with AS! Subhash Chander, Head Constable, Om Prakash and other police personnel were present at village Taiwan! in connection with 'nakabandi', a Maruti van of white colour came towards them and was signalled to stop but instead of stopping' the same, was driven with speed. After going at some distance the van turned turtle and two persons from the said van alighted and started running away. After some distance the present appellant was caught and another person succeeded in running away. On checking the van, 8 bags were found in it. On suspicion, Sl Baljit Singh served notice on the appellant to the effect that he wanted to take search of the bags and whether accused was interested to give search in presence of the gazetted officer or Magistrate. The appellant replied that he be searched in presence of a gazetted officer. Hence, Public Witness-1 Lat Chand, DSP Siwani, Head Quarters at Hissar was called for through wireless message by the SHO Baljit Singh. When he came there, he saw the Maruti van. He found the van in a turtled position on the left side of the road and the accused was sitting near the van. In his presence, search was carried out and 8 bags of chura-post were found. Each bag was having 40 kgs of chura-post. After completing the necessary panchnama accused was arrested.

(3.) In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined Public Witness-1 Lal Chand, DSP, Public Witness-2 ASI Subhash Chander, Public Witness- 3 Sl Baljit Singh and Public Witness-4 Head Constable Sudhinder Kumar, and also produced the chemical analyser report. Appellant denied the charge and submitted that nothing was recovered from him and that at the instance of Head Constable Om Prakash, who belongs to his village, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused was also got examined, defence witness Pawan Kumar, who was the owner of the Maruti van has stated that on 16/02/1995 Sl Baljit Singh came to his shop and demanded the Maruti van for his personal use. Thereafter, on the next day Maruti van was given to him (Sl Baljit Singh). On the following day a constable came and informed him to take away Maruti van from the police station, Siwani. There he found that the Maruti van was damaged due to accident. It is his further say that he told Baljit Singh that he should get it repaired. Hearing this, he became furious and informed him that he should come there on the next day. On the next day i. e. on 19/02/1995 when he went to the police station, he was informed that the van was involved in a criminal case. He was also informed that if he argued further he would also be implicated in the case. He denied the acquaintance with the appellant.