JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All four accused, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, had come up before this court by filing two separate appeals in 2002. Since the appeals were not heard within a reasonable time, their sentences were suspended. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants Balbir Ram and Kanwar Singh expired, and appeal CRA-S-1705-SB-2004 filed by them stand abated vide order dtd. 9/8/2023. Appellant Sukhdev Singh also expired during the pendency of the present appeal, and proceedings qua him stand abated vide order dtd. 14/7/2023. Thus, the present judgment confines the surviving appellant, namely Joginder Singh.

(2.) On May 20, 1997, the police party headed by SHO PW-6 Raj Kumar along with other police officials, namely head Constable Than Singh, PW-7 Constable Mangal Singh, Constable Harbans Lal, Constable Randhir Singh, after patrolling in their jurisdiction, were present near bus stand of village Bharolianwali in an official vehicle driven by Constable Harminder Singh. At around 10 to 11:00 AM, a Jeep bearing registration number HR-24B-4057 came from the side of the village Jiwan Nagar. On noticing it, they signaled it to stop because the SHO PW-6 Raj Kumar wanted to search the Jeep. The SHO directed Jeep's driver to cooperate and saw some gunny bags lying in its boot trunk space. The investigator suspected that the bags might contain some narcotic substance. On this, he detained the occupants of the Jeep and proceeded further. On inquiry, the driver of the Jeep disclosed his name as Kanwar Singh; the person siffing in the front along with the driver disclosed his name as Balveer Ram; the persons who were siffing on the gunny bags in the luggage space disclosed their names as Joginder Singh and Sukhdev Singh. Since the SHO wanted to search, he gave them an option under sec. 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, [After now called the NDPS Act] and vide Exhibit PE, the investigator informed them about their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. On this, the accused desired to be searched in the presence of some Gazetted officer. After this, the SHO sent information and called the DySP, Ellanabad, and after some time, the DySP Inderdutt, PW-1, reached the spot. The bags were opened in the presence of DySP, and they contained poppy husk. After that, the SHO sent a police constable to bring weighing scales and weights, and on his arrival, the police officials weighed all six bags, each having 38.5 kilograms of poppy husk. The SHO separated two samples of 250 grams each from every bag and kept those in separate packets. The SHO, as well as DySP, put their seals on the bulk as well as samples. After that, the police registered the FIR, arrested all the accused, and deposited the case property with MHC, who sent six parcels for testing to the FSL, which found the contraband as a sample of poppy straw. The Officer-in-charge of the police station launched prosecution by filing a report under 173 CrPC.

(3.) Vide order dated April 29, 1998, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, framed charges against all the issues under sec. 15 of the NDPS Act. The accused pleaded 'Not Guilty' and claimed to be tried. After examination of the witnesses and recording of the statements of the accused under 313 CrPC, the Trial Court allowed the prosecution and held all the accused guilty, and convicted and sentenced them as captioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the accused had filed the present appeal in the year 2022, purportedly under sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [After now referred as CrPC], read with Sec. 36-B of the NDPS Act.