ATMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present criminal appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 15.1.2004, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, whereby the appellant, Atma Singh @ Baj Singh, son of Bachna Singh, resident of Rattangarh, Police Station, Ratia, District Fatiabad (Haryana), was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'NDPS Act'), and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years besides payment of fine of rupees one lac and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following arguments: -

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the investigating agency had no enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in the present case; there was no delay in sending the samples to the Chemical Examiner since after seven days of the recovery of the contraband, the samples were sent on 25.2.2002, but due to deficiency in the forwarding letter, the samples were sent back by the Chemical Examiner to the investigating agency and, as such, time was consumed in delivering the samples; the appellant was found sitting on the gunny bags containing poppy husk and from the said fact it would be clear that he was in conscious possession of the poppy husk; no prejudice has been caused to the appellant from the fact that no question was put to him in his statement recorded under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C., regarding conscious possession of the contraband; mere non - examination of Ajaib Singh, a person from the public, would not lead this Court to assume that whole case of the prosecution was false; the investigating officer had made an offer to the appellant to call for the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate at the spot, but the appellant had himself declined the said offer of police and posed confidence in the Investigating Officer; and that the contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant were bound to occur in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses when they were examined after long lapse of time. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.