PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 13.7.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1995, holding the accused-appellant guilty of offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), and sentencing him to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for having been found in illegal possession of 20 kgs. of smack/brown sugar. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant was directed to further undergo RI for one year.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, giving rise to the present criminal appeal, are that on 8/9.1988, Inspector Sita Ram along with other police party was coming towards Khalsa College, Amritsar, from village Dhapai, while patrolling under the supervision of DSP T.P.S. Sandhu. When the police party reached near the railway crossing of Village Kot Khalsa, the accused along with other two persons were seen carrying three trunks, one each on their heads. The accused and the said two persons tried to take a turn towards the railway quarters on seeing the police party. The police party was divided into three groups. A team headed by Inspector Sita Ram (PW-4) captured accused-appellant Puran Singh. On being asked as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the accused-appellant reposed his full faith in the Inspector. Thereafter, on the asking of the Inspector, the accused, having taken out the key from the right packet of his shirt, opened the lock of the trunk. 20 pockets of smack/brown sugar, each weighing one kg., were found in side the trunk. The accused-appellant did not produce any permit/licence for keeping the same in his possession. The I.O. took out the samples of 10 grams smack/brown sugar from every packet and put them into separate in dibbas, which were made into parcels, and the remaining quantities of contraband (weighing 990 grams in each packet) of the 20 packets were kept in the same packets. They were also made into separate parcels. The sample parcels and the remaining quantities parcels were duly sealed with the impression 'SR'. Thereafter the entire case properties were kept in the same trunk. The trunk was also sealed with impression 'SR'. The case properties were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PA), which was attested by ASI Kuldip Singh and HC Rattan Singh. The seal in question (S.R.) was handed- over to police officer, ASI Kuldip Singh after use. An amount of Rs. 195/- was also recovered from the search of the person of the accused-appellant which was taken into possession vide memo (Ex. PB). A ruqa (Ex. PC) was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which, a formal FIR (Ex. PC/1) was recorded. A site plan was prepared vide Ex. PD, and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Having reached the Police Station, the IO deposited the case property, including the sample parcels and the sample seal with the MHC with all the seal impressions intact. On completion of the investigation and receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PE), a charge-sheet was laid against the accused-appellant in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, who in turn, committed the same to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the site plan, there were railway quarters on both sides of the place of recovery but no independent witness was joined. There was a non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. According to him, there was an inordinate delay in sending the sample to the FSL, as recovery was effected on 9.9.1988 whereas, the sample was sent on 11.10.1988. There was a non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act also, inasmuch as, the case property and the accused were not produced before the SHO. He also referred to the evidence of two defence witnesses, namely, DW-1 and DW-2, in support of the defence case. According to DW-1, a Police Constable, the key and samples were not deposited with the MHC. According to DW-2, the accused-appellant was picked up from his house and was falsely implicated in this case.