SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM-1543-2020 Prayer in this application is for early hearing of the main appeal, which stands admitted on 11.03.2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2012, ASI Mohan Lal, along with HC Pawan Kumar, HC Anil Kumar and PHG Parampal Singh, was on patrol duty in Dasuya and when they crossed the railway track, one car bearing registration No. PB-21-A-5050 was found parked there and one young persons was sitting inside the same. On suspicion, he was apprehended by ASI Mohan Lal along with other police officials. On inquiry the said person disclosed his name as Sukhwinder Singh (appellant herein). Thereafter, ASI Mohan Lal introduced himself and told Sukhwinder Singh that he was having suspicion that he (appellant) was possessing some contraband and he had a right to get his search conducted in the presence of some Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, however, the accused/appellant reposed faith on him. Thereafter, the consent memo in this regard was prepared by ASI Mohan Lal and was read over to accused/appellant and he signed the same in English after admitting it to be correct. The Investigating Officer also tried to join some independent witness, however, nobody was ready to join. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted the search of the said car and recovered 120 capsules of Spasmo Proxywon and from the personal search of the accused/appellant, one injection of Avil 10 ml along with syringe was recovered, for which accused/appellant could not produce any licence. The trial Court, finding a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, chargesheeted him under Section 22 of the NDPS Act for keeping in his possession 120 capsules of Spasmo Proxywon containing salt of 'Dextrpropoxyphene Napsylate', 'Dicyclomine hydrochloride' and 'Paracetamol' and one injection of Avil 10 ml containing the salt of 'Pheniramine Maleate', without any permit or licence, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and appreciating the material/evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.