STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 11.4.1990 vide which accused-Sant Ram, son of Des Raj has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short,'the Act') in a case registered vide FIR No. 196 dated 30.9.1988. The prosecution story in brief is that on 30.9.1988, A.S.I. Balwinder Pal along with other members of the Police force were on patrol duty when they saw the accused- Sant Ram coming from the side of Chauntra Khuh. Since they found the movements of the accused to be suspicious, they apprehended him and on conducting a personal search upon him, they found 100 grams of charas from the right pocket of the pant worn by the said accused. Ten grams of charas was separated as a sample, and the sample, and the residue were thereafter made into separate sealed parcels which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.A duly attested by Constable Bishan Dass and Bal Kishan. Ruqa Ex.P.B./1 was sent to the police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which a formal FIR was recorded. The Police thereafter prepared the site plan of the place of recovery and the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and was subsequently found to be of charas. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex.P.D.

(2.) On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, the accused was charged under Section 20 of the Act and it is this acquittal which has prompted the present appeal by the State. The main challenge to the judgment was on the ground that the recovery effected from the person of the accused was a chance recovery and,therefore, learned counsel for the State sought refuge in the fact that in these circumstances the mandatory provisions, if not complied with, did not damage the prosecution case. We are afraid that such an argument cannot be accepted. The provisions of the Act provide stringent punishment to the offenders which is a manifestation of the Government's and the Societies concern to come down heavily on such like offences but at the same time equally stringent safeguards have been provided in the Act with a view to prevent abuse of the provisions of law at the hands of some unscrupulous forces. Consequently, it is difficult to accept the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State that since it was a chance recovery, hence, the provisions of Section 50 could be given a go-bye. Non-compliance of these provisions would certainly cast an aspersion on the story of the prosecution. Apart from this, the prosecution story does not inspire any confidence as no independent witnesses were joined at the time of making the recovery.

(3.) Therefore, there is no reason to differ with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal which is consequently dismissed.