LAWS(SC)-2017-5-47

MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On May 25, 2017
MOHINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquittal of the appellant from the charge under Sec. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, has been reversed by the High Court in an appeal preferred by the State, convicting the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (L One Lakh only).

(2.) We have heard the counsel for the parties. The appellant was tried along with co-accused, Binder Singh. On 19.07.2011 this Court was informed that the co-accused was acquitted by the High Court. Today, learned counsel for the State, after taking instructions, confirms the acquittal of the co-accused, and further informs that on verification from the High Court, it does not appear that any appeal was preferred against his acquittal. Significantly, Binder Singh was the truck driver who originally absconded but faced trial subsequently. The appellant was travelling in the truck. We have serious reservations with regard to the selective act of the State in challenging the appellant's acquittal alone. If that was not enough, the conviction is based on a defective investigation. No investigation was conducted with regard to the origin and destination of the contraband. The owner of the truck was also not proceeded under Sec. 25 of the NDPS Act. No proceedings for confiscation of the truck were taken. The only independent witness was disbelieved and was held to be a stock police witness by the trial Court. Despite a finding of defective investigation, the High Court set aside the acquittal holding the trial Court judgment to be perverse.

(3.) The NDPS Act being a presumptive legislation, the interpretation has to be strict. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether it is the acquittal of the co-accused or the defective investigation, the interest of justice calls for restoring the order of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. The order of the High Court in appeal is set aside.