KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgment, dated 25.11.2013, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the appellant, Kuldeep Singh, was held guilty for having committed the offence punishable under Sec. 29, read with Sec. 21(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, besides payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lac only) and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for abetting Mehtab Gul Bahar (co -accused of the appellant) to keep in possession 500 gm. Smack without any valid permit or licence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also it is clear that alleged Smack, weighing 500 gm. was recovered from Mehtab Gul Bahar (the co -accused of the appellant); there is not an iota of word on the file that appellant was in conscious possession of the said contraband allegedly recovered from his co -accused; even the prosecution has failed to substantiate the fact that the appellant had the knowledge that his co -accused was carrying the contraband and that the appellant in any manner abetted his co -accused to commit the offence or that he hatched conspiracy with his co -accused to commit the offence. He further submits that perusal of the statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C., would reveal that no question with regard to conscious possession of the alleged contraband and abetment of the offence by co -accused of the appellant was put to the appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Raj Kumar v/s. State of Punjab,, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 70, a Division Bench judgment of this Court; Avtar Singh v/s. State of Punjab, : 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 180 (SC) and Ram Sarup and others v/s. State of Haryana, : 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 157, a Single Bench judgment of this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State though fairly conceded that Smack was not recovered from the appellant, yet he submitted that the learned Trial Court has given the cogent reasons for holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 29, read with Sec. 21(c) of NDPS Act, and, as such, no interference is called for. He further submits that Sec. 35 of NDPS Act will enable the Court to presume the culpability of the appellant for hatching conspiracy with his co -accused, Mehtab Gul Bahar.