STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal by the State has been directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 1.7.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala acquitting the respondent for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(2.) THE brief facts on the basis of which the prosecution has set its case in motion (sic) the respondent are that Shiv Charan ASI of Police Station Barnala along with other police officials was going from Hondiaya towards Bathida via G.T. Road in connection with patrolling in Govt. Gypsy No. RCT-9101. When the police party crossed the bridge of Canal Minor in the revenue limits of village Handiaya, they saw a man sitting on the gunny bags in pits, on the left side of the road. The Gypsy was stopped and Shiv Charan ASI went ahead to apprehend the accused but on seeing the police party, he tried to slip away but he was apprehended with the help of police officials. The apprehended person disclosed his name as Jagjit Singh alias Mulla son of Ram Singh. ASI Shiv Charan Singh asked him that he want to take his search and his gunny bags and whether he wanted to give his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Jagjit Singh posed faith in the police official. Consequently, search was conducted of 5 gunny bags as per procedure on which he was sitting and poppy husk was recovered from those bags. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken from each of the bags and on weighing remaining bags were found containing 40 kilograms and 500 grams of poppy husk. Gunny bags and samples were sealed and seal bearing impression SC was applied.

(3.) THE Trial court after considering evidence on record found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him holding that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with in as much as the statement of the accused that he desired that the search is to be conducted by the police officials cannot be deemed to be compliance of the provisions of the Act and cannot be taken on its face value without any independent corroboration. The learned trial court also found that there is no non-official corroboration to the testimony of the official witnesses about the recovery. The independent witness Santa Singh who was stated to have joined in the recovery process was given up by the Public Prosecutor as having been won over. No other independent witness was joined to witness the alleged recovery although the recovery is stated to have been effected at a busy thoroughfare at G.T. Road at about 6 a.m.