MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by Mohinder Singh appellant directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 16.9.1995. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) THE incident pertains to 8.10.1993. It is alleged that SI Ram Singh was present at Doorbin Chowk, Ambala Cantonment in connection with patrolling and crime checking. He was accompanied by UCG Ram Phal and Constable Tej Veer. At about 6.00 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from the side of Railway Station. He was having a card board carton on his head. On seeing the police party, he returned back and started walking briskly. It aroused the suspicion to SI Ram Singh. The appellant was stopped. He was told that if he likes his person can be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. A notice in this regard was served to the appellant. The appellant did not accept the offer and expressed full faith in SI Ram Singh. His consent was recorded in writing.

(3.) RUQA was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded by ASI Dharam Pal. Rough site plan was prepared and the appellant arrested. While the appellant was being brought to the police station. Inspector Banwari Lal met them on the way. The appellant was produced before him alongwith the recovered poppy husk. He verified the facts and affixed the seal of 'BL' on both the parcels. The case property was deposited with the Malkhana Moharrir. Subsequently, the representative sample was sent for chemical analysis. It was reported that contents were poppy husk. On these broad facts, challan as against the appellant was presented in Court.