KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant along with his co-accused Amanueal Masih had faced trial under Sec. 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) in FIR No. 39 dated 18.2.2000, registered at Police Station Shahkot, Jalandhar. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.2.2000, Sub Inspector Surinder Singh along with other police officials were present in the area of Chowk Jhandewala. Narinder Singh was joined as an independent witness with the police party. In the meantime, one horse cart, driven by Amanueal Masih, came and it was signalled to stop. Appellant was also sitting on the cart along with his co-accused. Both the accused were apprised of their right by Sub Inspector Surinder Singh that they could get the cart searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Both the accused gave their option that they wanted to get the search effected in the presence of a gazetted officer. Then, Harjit Singh Brar, Deputy Superintendent of Police ('DSP' for short) was called to the spot. The cart was searched in the presence of DSP and five bags containing poppy husk were recovered. 250 grams of poppy husk was separated from each bag as sample whereas remaining poppy husk on weighment came to 34 kilograms and 750 grams in each bag. The samples were made into sealed parcels and were sealed with seal of DSP bearing impression 'HS'. Bags containing bulk poppy husk were also made into sealed parcels and were sealed with seal of DSP bearing impression 'HS'. The sample parcels as well as parcels of bulk poppy husk were taken in possession. Sub Inspector/Station House Officer Sucha Singh reached the spot and case property was produced before him by Sub Inspector Surinder Singh. On return to police Station, case property was deposited by Sub Inspector Surinder Singh with MHC in intact condition. Accused along with the case property were produced before the Area Magistrate on 19.2.2000. On receipt of report of Chemical Examiner and after completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.

(2.) Charge was framed against the accused under Sec. 15 of the Act vide order dated 17.5.2000.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses during trial.