STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 15, 1987, ASI Joginder Singh (PW2) was heading a police party consisting of Head Constable Gurcharan Singh (PW -1) and constable Gurcharan Singh. The police party was patrolling the area and when reached near a bridge of Semanala of village Dhandiwal, the accused was found carrying a gunny bag containing 30 kilograms of poppy husk on a bicycle. A sample of 200 grams of poppy husk was taken out of the incriminating material. Residue poppy husk was put into a separate bag. Sample packet and the bag were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. Ruqqa Ex. PB was sent, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PB/1 was recorded by MHC Charan Singh at the police station. Rough site plan Ex. PC 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 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.

(2.) PROSECUTION has examined only two official witnesses, namely, HC Gurcharan Singh -(PW -1) and ASI Joginder Singh (PW -2). PW -1 HC Gurcharan Singh supported the version of PW -2 ASI Joginder Singh to prove the arrest of the accused and recovery of poppy husk from the possession of the accused in the manner, stated above. Affidavits of MHC Charan Singh (Ex. PE) and that of constable Gurcharan Singh (Ex. PF) along with report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PD) were also tendered into evidence. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances against him of the prosecution case and pleaded innocence.

(3.) THE trial Court on appraisal of the evidence, produced by the prosecution on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the investigating officer (PW -2 ASI Joginder Singh) was not duly authorised officer to search and arrest the accused as there was no notification in this regard issued by the State authorising him with the powers under the Act. In support of this view, the trial. Court placed reliance upon a judgment reported as Karam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 795 (Pb. and Hry.). The trial Court also held that the mandatory provisions as contained in Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the Act have not been complied with and for non -compliance of the said provisions, it was not safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of the official witnesses.