JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal emanates from judgment delivered by Special Court, Rupnagar, whereby, appellant was convicted for offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing 50 Kgs. of poppy husk. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) Briefly, prosecution case is that on the basis of ruqa received from SI Manvir Singh, SHO, Police Station Nangal, to the effect that on 26th June, 2002, he alongwith other police officials was patrolling in Govt. Gypsy No.PB-09-5805 driven by CII Kulvir Singh No.1414, from Truck Union Chowk Nangal to Nangal Dam. After crossing the railway line, at about 5.00 a.m., a person was found sitting on a gunny bag on left side of the raod with a black colour bag in his arms. On seeing the police officials, said person after leaving the bag at the spot, started retracing towards the khokas. On suspicion, he was nabbed by the police officials and enquired about his name and address. He disclosed his name as Jagtar Singh alias Pappu. In the meantime, a person namely Mohan Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of Darauli came to the spot, who was joined as independent witness by the police party. Thereafter, Surinder Pal, Naib Tehsildar, Nangal, was called at the spot by the police party for search of the accused person. Upon search conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, eight polythene envelopes of poppy husk were found from the bag and 17 polythene envelopes of poppy husk were found from gunny bag. Two samples of 250 grams each were separated and sent to FSL, remaining on weighment came to be 14.500 Kgs. The same were sealed separately. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial.

(3.) Finding a prima facie case under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses.