STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NARATA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dated 18th May, 1990, whereby the accused-respondent Narata Ram has been acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

(2.) THE story of the prosecution is that on 17th July, 1989, Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh PW-2 accompanied by Assistant Sub Inspector Ajaib Singh PW-1, and other police officials was present at the Railway Station Budhlada when train No. 341 UP came from Jakhal and entered the station at about 1.55 p.m. Many passengers including the accused alighted from the train. As the accused proceeded towards the exit gate, he was stopped by the police party on suspicion. S.I. Amarjit Singh thereafter made an offer to the accused that he could be taken before a gazetted officer for conducting his personal search if he so desired but he declined this offer saying that he had full faith and confidence in S.I. Amarjit Singh. Hence no such procedure was adopted. Thereafter the Jhola Ex. P-1 of the accused was searched from which 10 plastic containers, containing 1000 tablets in each container were recovered. Ten tablets from each of the containers were separated as a sample and sent to the Director, Forensic Laboratory, who vide its report Ex. PH found that the tablets contained 'Morphine' and as such the tablets were narcotics in terms of the Act. The accused was accordingly brought to trial.

(3.) MR . A.G. Masih, AAG, appearing on behalf of the State, has urged that there was no rule or law that conviction could not be recorded on the sole testimony of the police witnesses and as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) Recent CR 736, the mere non-compliance of with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act would not entitle the accused to acquittal unless it could further be shown that such non-compliance has caused material prejudice to him.