HARTEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, both dated 6.7.1990, vide which the present appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. One lac. In default thereof, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Harbans Singh, ASI, who was examined as PW. 5, accompanied by Mohinderpal Singh, Head Constable and other police official were on routine patrolling when they noticed that the accused walking carrying a plastic bag in his hand. After seeing the vehicle of the police party, he at once turned towards village Dumna. However, he was apprehended. In terms of the provisions of the Act, he was required to carry the personal search of the accused in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused stated that he had full faith in the ASI and he could search him. The A.S.I. then conducted the search in the Jhola On search of he was found carrying opium weighing one kg. wrapped in plastic bag. Out of this, 5 grams of opium was separated as sample and put into dabi tin and sealed with the seal of H.S. The accused could not show any permit to possess the said opium. Accordingly, ruqa exhibit PA was sent to the Police station and F.I.R. was registered. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PF, challan was submitted. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to the court of Sessions to face trial. Learned trial court framed a charge under section 18 of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, firstly contended that there was violation of provisions section 50 of the Act. He also contended that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt satisfying the basic ingredients for conviction under the above referred provisions of the Act. The only independent witness Balwinder Singh was also not examined. However, without touching the merit of these contentions, learned counsel for the appellant primarily submitted that he does not press his afore-noticed contentions though they have material bearing on the case of the prosecution, but would argue and be permitted to press submissions in regard to quantum of sentence only.