TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARSEM Singh being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded against him under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has filed the present appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses are that on 24.3.1995, police party headed by PW3 SI Jasbir Singh, In -charge, Police Post, Hathur was present on the canal bridge in the area of village Rasoolpur in connection with a Nakabandi/patrol duty. It consisted of ASI Mehar Singh, ASI Ajit Singh, Constable Balbir Singh 428, Constable Amarjit Singh 388, Constable Devinder Kumar 258, Constable Harpal Singh 629, Constable Shamsher Singh 218, PHG Lakhvir Singh and PHG Jasbir Singh. Along with the police party was Govt, vehicle Allwyn Nisan bearing registration No.PB -1 OF/9664 which was being driven by Constable Shingara Singh, At about 5.00 a.m., a tractor -trolley was seen coming from the side of Kaonke Khossa and the Sub -Inspector had signalled the driver with the help of a torch to stop. On seeing the police party, the tractor driver responded by stopping the tractor on one side of the road but taking advantage of the darkness escaped from the spot leaving behind the man sitting on the tractor -trolley, who was apprehended by Sub -Inspector with the help of other officials. The enquiries made from this person revealed that he was Tarsem Singh son of Sarkar Saran Jat, resident of Kokri Kalan, Police Station Mehna, District Faridkot. He also disclosed the identity of the driver of the tractor -trolley as his son Hardip Singh. PW3, had thereafter, appraised him that gunny bags lying in the trolley were to be searched and if he desires some Magistrate or Gazetted Officer could be called to the spot for the same. The appellant, however, indicated that he trusted the Investigating Officer and appended his consent to the memo prepared by the Investigating Officer, where after, the Sub -Inspector searched the bags as per procedure and found that in all there were 20 bags each containing 40 kilograms of poppy husk. He took two samples of 250 grams each from each of the bags and after making parcels of the samples, appended his seal 'JS' on both the samples as well as the gunny bags, which were thereafter taken into possession through a memo. Ex.PB. The tractor was also taken into possession along with its trolley through memo Ex.PC and memo. Ex.PD was prepared in relation to the personal search of Tarsem Singh. After this PW3 SI Jasbir Singh had sent a ruqqa Ex.PDD to Police Station, Jagraon through Constable Devinder Kumar and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PDl was recorded. PW3 SI Jasbir Singh also prepared a rough site plan of the place of recovery and on return to the Police Station produced Tarsem Singh and the case property before the Inspector Joginder Singh, who verified the facts and sealed the case property with his seal, which also bore the impression 'JS', before depositing the same with Moharrir Head Constable Devinder Singh PW5. On the same day, PW1 ASI Mehar Singh again took the case property from the Moharrir Head Constable and produced the same before the Illaqa Magistrate vide application Ex.PF upon which the Magistrate passed order Ex.PFl, whereafter, the case property was redeposited with the Moharrir Head Constable. One of the two samples taken from each of the bags was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab and the report of the laboratory confirmed the samples to be that of poppy husk. On completion of the investigation, during the course whereof Hardip Singh was apprehended, a challan was put in the court of Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the same for trial to the Special Judge, Ludhiana. On going through the papers forwarded with the challan, the trial court framed charges against the accused under Section 15 of the Act for having been found in possession 20 bags of poppy husk, weighing 40 kilograms each in Ford Tractor which was being driven by Hardip Singh without any valid permit or license. When the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence.

(3.) WHEN the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case against the appellant were put to him, he denied all the circumstances and took the following plea: -