SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE trial Court relied upon the evidence of Hazura Singh-SI PW 3 as also the report of the Chemical Examiner about identifying the seized article to be a psychotropic substance and came to the conclusion that the case against the accused stood proved. The trial Court also held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not required to be complied with as the meeting of the accused and the police party was not on prior information and for this purpose placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR 736; and that non-production of the case property, did not, in any way, adversely affect the outcome of the prosecution case. The Court also observed that the recovery of a large quantity of poppy husk made it difficult to accept that it had been planted on the accused. Having held as above, the trial Court while convicting the accused other than Man Singh under Section 15 of the Act, also convicted Man Singh accused under Section 25 of the Act. Hence this appeal.

(3.) WE have considered this argument and find that it deserves acceptance. It will be clear from the First Information Report as also the subsequent proceedings taken that there was no reference whatsoever to the fact as to whether offer in terms of Section 50 of the Act had been made and the learned counsel appears to be right in arguing that the said police officer was not even aware of its provisions. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was non compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Once this finding has been arrived at, the question now arises as to whether the provisions of the aforesaid section had to be complied with in the present facts. Balbir Singh's case (supra), which has been relied upon by the trial Court as well, was a case where the seizure had been made on the basis of prior information with the police and it was in that situation, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act had to be complied with. This principle has, however, further been extended to a case of a chance meeting by the Supreme Court itself in Mohinder Kumar v. State of Goa, 1995(2) R.C.R. 599 provided the apprehension of the accused and the subsequent seizure have been made as a result of the suspicious conduct of the accused. A look at the First Information Report would reveal that the suspicions of the police party had been raised on account of the fact that when the truck was stopped, Naresh Kumar one of the absconding accused had run away from the spot and it was in that situation that the search was made. Applying the principles laid down in Mohinder Kumar's case (supra), an offer in terms of Section 50 of the Act had to be made to the accused before the search. As we have come to the conclusion that no such offer was made, this appeal has to be allowed on this short ground.