TEHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dtd. 15/3/2022 vide which Judge, Special Court, Bathinda had convicted the present appellant under Sec. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and he had also been directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

(2.) The brief background of the case is that on 11/11/2018, SI Gurinder Singh alongwith other police officials had laid a barricade in connection with checking of suspects and vehicles on the Bathinda-Dabwali, Badal Crossing and when it was about 5.30 p.m., one Alto Car bearing registration No.PB-03AX-9103 came from the side of Dabwali, which was signalled to stop, but the driver of the car immediately tried to turn back and tried to flee from the spot, but was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and on enquiry, it was learnt that it was the present appellant who was driving the car. Since, SI Gurinder Singh informed him that there was suspicion that some intoxicant substance were being carried by the appellant and therefore, made him aware of his legal right to get himself searched in the presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but the appellant reposed confidence in him only and accordingly, consent memo was prepared. The recovery of 60 grams of heroin was ultimately effected and after following due procedure, challan in the present case was presented and case property was produced in the Court of Sh. Varun Nagpal, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on 12/11/2018 where two samples of 5 gm each were drawn, which were sealed with seal bearing mark ACJM. Thereafter, on 13/11/2018, sample parcel was sent to the office of RTFSL, Bathinda through Constable Rajesh Kumar and after receipt of report of RTFSL, challan was presented and charges under Sec. 21 of the NDPS Act were framed.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses, which are detailed as follows: