MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 23/4/2003 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur, vide which the appellant has been convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Sec. 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. It was also directed that the period undergone by the appellant during investigation, inquiry and trial, shall be set-off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.

(2.) Briefly, the FIR No.126 dtd. 22/6/2002, Police Station Bullowal under Sec. 15 of the Act was registered on the allegations that on 22/6/2002 S.I. Balbir Singh, Officer Incharge of Police Station Bullowal received a secret information to the effect that the appellant is carrying poppy husk in the truck bearing registration Number HR 38D 2007 and is coming from Jammu and Kashmir to sell the same in the villages and the truck was coming to village Patharalian. Relying upon the information ruqqa was recorded and dispatched to the police station, on the basis whereof FIR was registered. S.I Balbir Singh alongwith fellow police officials raised Nakabndi near choe bridge, Khadiala Sehian and information was sent to Charanjit Kumar DSP (R) with the request to arrive at the spot. At about 9.00 a.m., the truck came from Tanda side. It was signaled to stop. It was being driven by the appellant and his identity was verified. DSP Charanjit Kumar gave his introduction to the appellant and told him that search of the truck is to be conducted as it was suspected that he was carrying narcotics substance. The appellant was further asked if he intends to get the search conducted in the presence of any other gazetted officer or a Magistrate but the appellant reposed confidence upon him. The consent statement was reduced into writing. The search of the truck was carried out but no incriminating article was recovered. However, in the presence of DSP Charanjit Kumar, the appellant made disclosure statement exhibit PE to the effect that he has concealed the poppy husk in the empty chamber of the second part of the diesel tank of the truck which was in his exclusive knowledge and can get the same recovered. Consequently in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the appellant opened the clump with help of a plier which led to the recovery of 10 packets of poppy straw. Two samples weighing 250 gm each were separated and the remaining poppy straw weighed 9 kg 500 gm. Separate parcels of both the samples and the bulk were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression CK and BS. The specimen seal was prepared and the incriminating articles were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. The truck alongwith the registration certificate and insurance certificate were taken into possession. The personal search of the appellant was also conducted. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and conclusion of investigation, the challan was presented against the appellant. On presentation of challan the copies of documents were supplied to the appellant. A prima facie case under sec. 15 of the Act was made out to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In support of its allegations, the prosecution has examined five witnesses namely HC Nirmal Singh PW1, Constable Sukhwinder Singh PW2, S.I. Balbir Singh PW3, HC Harjinder Singh PW4 and DSP Charanjit Kumar PW5 besides producing documentary evidence.