DILBAGH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The period already undergone by him during investigation, inquiry and trial was ordered to be set off against the substantive term of imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 20.6.2002, SI Paramjit Singh, alongwith fellow police officials, was proceeding in an official vehicle in connection with patrolling towards Sarhala Kalan and Rupowal. When the police party reached near the Choe of Rupowal, it noticed that one person was sitting in the elephant -grass and was carrying scales and weights, besides four bags containing some narcotic substance. One scooter was parked nearby. On seeing the police party, that person tried to slip away but was apprehended by SI Paramjit Singh, with the help of his companions, on the basis of suspicion. On enquiry, the person apprehended disclosed his identity. SI Paramjit Singh informed him that he was posted as SHO, Police Station Mahilpur and the bags kept by him were to be searched. The suspect had the option to get the search conducted in the presence of some gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The suspect consented to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. Memo. prepared in that regard was thumb -marked by the suspect. SI Paramjit Singh used wireless to request Shri Navjot Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garhshankar to reach the spot. On his arrival, the Deputy Superintendent of Police again gave an offer to the suspect that the four bags were to be searched and whether he wanted the search to be conducted by him or some Magistrate. The suspect reposed confidence in the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Consent memo. in that regard was again prepared, which was thumb -marked by the suspect. In the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SI Paramjit Singh conducted the search of four bags, which were found to contain poppy husk. Three of those bags weighed 35 kgs. each, while the fourth bag weighed 30 kgs. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken from each of the four bags and converted into parcels. The sample parcels and the four bags, duly sealed, were taken into possession. The scales and weight of 1 kg., besides the scooter were also taken into possession. SI Paramjit Singh, thereafter, sent ruqa to the Police Station through Constable Amarjit Singh, on the basis of which FIR No.103 dated 20.6.2002 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was recorded at Police Station, Mahilpur. The personal search of the suspect conducted by SI Paramjit Singh led to recovery of currency notes worth Rs.500/ -. The suspect was arrested. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused and the case property were taken to the Police Station, Mahilpur. While the accused were kept in the police lock -up, the case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable Gurmail Singh. Samples were subsequently sent to the Chemical Examiner to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh and on the basis of the analysis, they were found to be of poppy husk. Upon completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused. This was followed by the trial Court framing charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Constable Makhan Singh, PW2 HC Gurmail Singh, PW3 DSP Navjot Singh, PW4 ASI Sohan Singh and PW5 SI Paramjit Singh. The report Ex.PL of the Deputy Chemical Examiner was also tendered in evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. However, no evidence in defence was led by him.