STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARKH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASI Dayanand (PW-4) was present at the platform of railway station, Rewari, for checking in his official capacity as Head Constable in CIA, Rewari, on June 29, 1987. At about 8.00 a.m., a train came from Bawal side and the accused alighted from a compartment of the train on the said platform. On suspicion, he was apprehended and on search of the bag, which was in his possession one kilogram of opium was recovered. Fifty grams of opium was taken out for preparing a sample. Remaining opium weighing 950 grams was also sealed in a parcel. Sample and the residue opium were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE, attested by the police constables. Ruqqa Ex. PA/2 was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA was recorded by MHC Sumer Singh. Rough site plan Ex. PF of the place of recovery was prepared at the spot. After completion of investigation and on receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report, the accused was made to face trial before the trial Court. The trial Court framed a charge under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

(2.) TO prove the factum of arrest of the accused and recovery of one kilogram of opium from his possession the prosecution examined two official witnesses, namely, ASI Dayanand (PW-4) and constable Rajinder Singh (PW-3). Two affidavits of the official witnesses Ex. PB and PC were also tendered into evidence to prove the link evidence, besides tendering the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PD. Similarly, SI Baljit Singh (PW-1) and ASI Sumer Singh (PW-2) are formal witnesses. When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances against him and pleaded false implication.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the order of acquittal dated May 13, 1988, State filed appeal in this Court and leave to appeal was granted by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated November 28, 1988. The appeal is being disposed of by this order.