PARKASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant-Parkash Kumar against the judgment and order dated 6.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act - for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are that on 24.6.1995, Sub-Inspector Darshan Singh, Incharge CIA Staff, Faridkot, along with Sub-Inspector Nek Singh and another Sub-Inspector Darshan Singh, Sub-Inspector Tehal Singh, ASI Ajmer Singh, LC Jagjit Singh, LC Nirmal Singh, Constable Harbans Singh, Constable Gurmail Singh, Constable Swaran Singh, Constable Sukhdev Singh, LC Amrik Singh, on a Government Canter No. PB 04 3054, whose driver was Constable Bhupinder Singh, were coming back after patrolling the area of Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. When the Police party reached about one 'Killa' ahead of village Bhana, Bohar Singh son of Nidhan Singh met them and he was joined with the Police party which reached near the storm drain (Semnallah) in the area of village Bhana. There a person was coming on foot from the opposite side, carrying one white fertilizer bag slinging on his right shoulder. On seeing the Police party, he turned at once towards his left side on the southern bank of the storm drain (Semnallah) towards the west. On suspicion, he was apprehended with the help of the other officials and was asked his name and particulars. He gave his name as Parkash Kumar son of Ved Parkash resident of village Bhawani Mandi, district Jhalwad (Rajasthan). He was informed that his search was to be conducted and he was apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He was asked whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused stated that he would offer his search before a senior officer. Accordingly, his consent memo was prepared and reduced into writing which was attested by him and by the witnesses. Thereafter, a wireless message was flashed to Gurmail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Faridkot, who was requested to reach the spot. Deputy Superintendent of Police Gurmail Singh reached the spot within 20 minutes and search of the accused was conducted in the presence of Gurmail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the witness Bohar Singh. From the white fertilizer bag, which was slinging on the right shoulder of the accused, opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from which, 50 grams of opium was taken out as a sample and was put into a small plastic box and the remaining opium was weighed and it was found to contain 9 kgs 450 grams, which was put in a plastic tin (Ex. P-1). After preparing the parcels, they were sealed with the seal bearing impression 'DS' which was entrusted to SI Nek Singh. Separate impression of seal (Ex. P-2) was also prepared. The case property was taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PD). The accused was searched and currency notes of Rs. 150/- were recovered from the pocket which were taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PB), which was signed by the accused and attested by the witnesses. Separate seal impression was also prepared and after use, the seal was entrusted to SI Nek Singh, memo of which were attested by the witnesses. The accused after being informed of the reasons for his arrest, was arrested vide memo (Ex. PF), which was signed by the accused and attested by the witnesses. On the basis of the information sent to the Police Station vide ruqa (memo) Ex. PG, case FIR No. 49 was registered vide report No. 16 on 24.6.1995 at 4 p.m. for the offence under Section 18 of the Act. The Police carried out its investigation. The rough site plan (Ex. PH) with correct marginal notes was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused along with the case property, sample and sample seal was made to appear before the SHO. The latter affixed his seal bearing impression 'BS'. The sample of opium was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner analysed the sample and opined that the contents of the same are opium.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.