LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-28

ZILE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On October 06, 2004
ZILE SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and order dated 9.9.1992 and 10.9.1992, respectively, appellant was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) for keeping in his possession 8 Kgs. of poppy straw without any permit or licence. He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten years. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) IN brief, it was case of the prosecution that on 18.6.1991, a police party, headed by Lakshmi Narain, ASI, Police Station City Kaithal was present near bus stand. Appellant/accused came there carrying a plastic bag on his head. On suspicion, he was stopped and told that the investigating officer intended to search him and he had an option to get himself searched by him or before a gazetted officer. Appellant/accused opted for search by a gazetted officer. Police party along with accused proceeded towards the office of DSP (Headquarters), who met them on the way. On search being conducted, 8 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the bag of the appellant. Sample was prepared as per rules and sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation and receipt of report of chemical examiner, final report was submitted in Court for trial. On being charge-sheeted, appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then led evidence to prove his guilt and brought on record oral as well as documentary evidence.

(3.) MR . Nagpal, appearing for the appellant, by referring to the testimony of PW-3, the investigating officer, has stated that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Offer for search made to the appellant was partial and was not complete. He prayed that in view of this, appellant deserves acquittal. He has further referred to certain discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding mode and manner of recovery allegedly effected from the appellant. He has further submitted that the witnesses are discrepant so far as time of recovery is concerned.