MAHENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHENDER Singh, son of Shankar Lal, resident of village Sarwarpur (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was charged under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison­ment for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Aggrieved by the same, he has come forward in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18.1.1986, Sub-Inspector Hari Singh of Police Station Siwani along with the police party and Matu Ram (PW1) was on patrol duty in a Police jeep. When they reached Sainiwa Railway Station at about 1.30 p.m. they parked the jeep near Dharamshala and started patrolling along the railway line. They noticed the appellant coming from the side of Jhupa along the line with a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he tried to retrace and sat in a ditch. On suspicion, he was apprehended. The gunny bag was opened in which there was a tin containing 8 kgs. of opium from which 50 gms. of opium was taken as sample and the residue was kept in the tin (Ex. P1). After sealing the sample and the residue separate­ly, the seal was handed over to Matu Ram PW 1, and the sample and the residue opium were taken into possession under a memo which was attested by Matu Ram PW 1 and others, Ruqa (Ex. PB) was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which the FIR (Ex. PB/1) was recorded. At the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the change framed under Section 18 of the Act and also pleaded false implication. On the prosecution side, Matu Ram (PW 1) and Hari Singh Yadav (PW 2), the then Sub-Inspector, were examined (apart from marking the affidavits of a Constable which are not very material for the purposes of our consideration). Relying upon the evidence let in by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above against which this appeal has been filed. We have to see whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained.

(3.) ANOTHER contention put forward by the appellant is that Matu Ram (PW 1) who is alleged to have witnessed this search and seizure of the narcotic drug from the appellant, is not an independent witness, but a stock witness of Siwani Police Station, and, therefore, his evidence is unreliable. Matu Ram (PW 1) in his evidence stated that when he was present at the Bus Stand Siwani, he was taken by the Police to village Saini was, and after parking the Police jeep near the Dharamsala, they went along the railway line and saw the accused coming from the southern side with a gunny bag on the head. He further stated that the appellant was carrying 8 kgs. of opium from which 50 gms. was taken as a sample that the sample and the residue were separately sealed that the seal was handed over to him and that the sample and the residue were taken possession of by the Police under recovery memo attested by him. In cross-examina­tion he admitted that there were several persons present at the Bus Stand Siwani, that he knew a few Police officials of the said Police Station prior to this occurrence that he was a witness in a case under the Arms Act titled 'State v. Iddan of Police Station Siwani and also in another case of the said Police Station with regard to Charas. The then Sub-Inspector (PW 2) also stated in his evidence that there were several persons passing on the road at the time when Matu Ram (PV 1) was asked to join the police party. This apart, Matu Ram (PW 1) also stated that there were several passengers sitting at the Railway Station and the police did not ask any of them to join the investigation. Although, the then Sub-Inspector (PW 2) stated that no person was present in the Dharamsala and at the Railway Station, it is contrary to the evidence of PW 1. From these we can find that though there wee several persons at Bust Stand Siwani from where PW 1 was asked to join the investigation, the Police did not ask anyone else than PW 1 to join the investigation. PJV 1, it is clear, must be a stock witness of this Police Station as otherwise there was ho need to choose him at Siwani Bus Stand itself (while the alleged occurrence took place in a different village) and that too from among several other persons who were present at the Bus Stand of Siwani.