SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PANJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala who convicted the Appellants Sukhdev Singh and Gurjant Singh under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac each. In default of payment of fine, each of the Appellants was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant Sukhdev Singh was further convicted under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial court also held that substantive sentences of Sukhdev Singh shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 8.9.1992 Ashutosh. Investigating Officer was posted as SHO, Police Station, Barnala. He was holding naka on the bridge of drain on Barnala -Bajakhana Road in the company of Head Constable Jit Singh, Constable Karnail Singh and other police officials. A truck came there from the side of Court Chowk, Barnala. It was got stopped. Its Registration Number was PB 11/A/6282. The truck was being driven by Sukhdev Singh, Appellant was sitting by the side of Sukhdev Singh. The Investigating Officer, Ashutosh told the Appellants that he wanted to take search of the truck and whether they wanted to give search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but the Appellants reposed confidence in the SHO and in this regard, statements Ex. PD and Ex. PE of Gurjant Singh and Sukhdev Singh respectively were recorded under Section 50 of the Act. These statements were read over and explained to the Appellants and these were attested by the police officials. Thereafter the SHO removed tarpaulin of the truck and found that 50 bags had been loaded in the truck and those bags were found to contain poppy husk. The SHO, drew two samples of 250 grams of poppy husk from each of the 50 bags and made sealed parcels thereof. The remaining poppy husk was weighed and each bag was found to contain 39.5 kilograms. The bags were numbered 1 to 50 and the sample parcels were numbered from 1 -A to 50 -A. All the sample parcels and the bags containing poppy husk were sealed with the seal bearing inscription Al and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PG attested by Head Constable Jit Singh and Constable Karnail Singh. The seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Jit Singh. The truck along with the driving licence of Sukhdev Singh Appellant and permit in the name of Rameshwar Dass were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH. The SHO sent ruka Ex. PJ to the Police Station and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PJ/1 was recorded by M.H.C. Hardev Singh. The Appellants were not in a position to produce any permit or licence for carrying poppy husk. From the personal search of the accused Sukhdev Singh a sum of Rs. 150 was recovered and from personal search of Gurjant Singh a sum of Rs. 50 was recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan Ex. PL with correct marginal notes. On return to the Police Station, case property was deposited with MHC Hardev Singh with seals intact. During the course of investigation, one sample of each bag was sent to Chemical Examiner who vide report Ex. PA declared the samples to be that of poppy husk. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate who supplied copies of the documents as required under law. Amended charge was framed against the Appellant on 11.10.1993 and they were charge -sheeted under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act on the allegations that they were found in possession of 50 bags of poppy husk on 8.9.1992 without any licence or permit. The charge was denied by the Appellants and they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

(3.) STATEMENT of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances and defence of Sukhdev Singh Appellant was as follows: