RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 13. 1. 1994, a police party headed by SI Badri Parshad consisting of ASI Balwan Singh and other members of the Police Force held a nakabandi near canal bridge in the area of Police Station, Ratia. on 13. 1. 1994. Around 3. 00 A. M. , they allegedly noticed a Four wheeler bearing No. HR-16-7316 being driven by Ranbir Singh accused and by the side of driver's seat Jai Singh was sitting. On seeing the police party Jai Singh escaped from the scene leaving the driver behind. The police party captured 10 bags each containing 40 Kgs. of poppy husk. 100 gins, was taken out as sample from each bag. The police had asked the driver if he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. The search was vouchsafed by DSP Mange Rain. The recovery memo Ex. PB was prepared. The seal was put on the sample. The Investigating Officer sent ruqa Ex. PE to the Police Station for registration of a case and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded. The sample and the remaining poppy husk were deposited with the MHC. While the police was holding the nakabandi they were allegedly having a private jeep being driven by Vakil Chand. Vide report Ex. PK, the Chemical Examiner opined that the contents of the sample were poppy husk. The other accused Jai Singh was arrested on 21. 2. 1994 from his village on Vakil Chand telling that the person escaped was Jai Singh. As the police claimed that he was already known to them and, therefore, there was no dispute with regard to identity of the person who escaped from the Four wheeler.

(2.) SO, it was in these circumstances that two persons were prosecuted and tried under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The learned trial Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 15 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(3.) BOTH the appellants have obviously come up in appeal which is being resisted by the State.