DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual position, as it emerges from the first information report is, that the Station House Officer of Police Station Shahar, Panipat, (who was holding the rank of Inspector), in the company of Bhim Singh Gill, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat, Constable Devendra Singh and Brajpal, while on patrol duty in Government Jeep, bearing Registration No. HR-6C-973, being driven by Jaisingh, were in the area of Sukhdev Nagar, during the course of investigation in Case No. 275 of 1999, under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code. He received a secret information, that the accused-appellant before this Court, namely, Darshan Singh s/o Gopal Das Khatri, a resident of House No. 361/3, Panipat, was carrying on the business of selling charas, opium and smack, to small children of the locality, and was responsible for the said children falling in bad habits. The secret informant, allegedly disclosed to the Station House Officer of Police Station Shahar, Panipat, that if a raid was promptly conducted, the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, could be apprehended in possession of charas, opium and smack.

(2.) As per the first information report, on the aforesaid secret information, the Station House Officer of Police Station proceeded to conduct a raid on the premises of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, along with his companions, as already noticed herein above. On reaching the house of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, he was given a notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') informing him that he wished to conduct a search of the premises and of his person. Darshan Singh was required to choose, whether he desired to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, or by a Magistrate. The accused-appellant Darshan Singh accepted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, and accordingly, he was searched by Bhim Singh Gill, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, who was accompanying the raiding party. The search of the house of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh lead to the recovery of 18 packets of opium (allegedly wrapped in a polythene bag), 7 polythene packets of charas and some loose charas, and 23 packets of smack, from the above residential premises, on the left side of the entrance. On weighing the recovered material, it emerged that the accused-appellant Darshan Singh was in possession of 30 grams of opium, 40 grams of charas and 9 grams of smack. Having taken samples of 10 grams of opium, 10 grams of charas and 9 grams of smack, separate packets thereof were prepared. The rest of the charas and opium were confiscated, and the confiscated material was separately sealed. The recovered opium, charas and smack were made into three separate packets. Each of the three packets were individually sealed with the seal "KS". The AETO also affixed his seal "BS" separately on each of the three sealed packets. It was also alleged that a cash amount of L 56,141/-, which was recovered from the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, which he had allegedly collected by the sale of opium, charas and smack was also seized. For the same, a separate seizure memo was prepared.

(3.) The factual position, depicted herein above was to demonstrate, that the Station House Officer of Police Station Shahar, Panipat, on the receipt of secret information, had immediately proceeded to raid the premises of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh. Consequent upon the completion of the investigation of the case, and presentation of the charge-sheet, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, framed the charges against the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, leading to the holding of a trial. On the culmination of the trial, Darshan Singh, the accused-appellant, was held guilty for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 18, 20, 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act, and was accordingly convicted for the same. The accused-appellant Darshan Singh was awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of L 1,00,000/-, for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. He was also sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, in case of default in payment of fine. The accused-appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of L 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, and in case of default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of L 1,00,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. Likewise, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of L 1,00,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and in case of default of the payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat directed that the above sentences would run concurrently.