RAMPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE background of the case is that vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2002, the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala convicted two persons namely, Amrik Singh son of Mehnga Singh and Ram Pal son of Vakil Ram under Sections 15 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act). Accused Amrik Singh was sentenced under Section 15 of NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs.One lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Rampal, who is appellant in the present case, was convicted under Section 25 of NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs.One lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) TRUCK No.HR -47 -3127 used in carrying 44 bags of poppy husk total weighing 15 quintals and 62 kg. belonging to accusedappellant Ram Pal, was ordered to be confiscated to State. Aggrieved by the said judgment both the accused filed separate appeals CRA No.441 -DB -2002 and CRA No.621 -DB of 2002 vide judgment dated 25.2.2003 of this Court. CRA No.621 -DB of 2002 filed by Amrik Singh was dismissed whereas CRA No.441 - DB -2002 filed by Ram Pal was allowed and consequently, he was acquitted.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment qua acquittal of Ram Pal, the State of Punjab filed CRA No.291 of 2004 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India vide order dated 26.3.2009 while referring to the authority of Madan Lal and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003 4 RCR(Cri) 100 , took the view that High Court has not kept the correct position in view and set aside the judgment of this Court qua accused Ram Pal and remitted the case to this Court for fresh decision in the light of decision of the Apex Court in Madan Lal 's case . After the remand of the case, bailable warrants were issued against Rampal. But he failed to turn up as bailable warrants could not be executed.