TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal arises of the following facts :- on 00.1.1986, ASI Harbhajan Singh, PW-2 accompanied by Karnail Singh, PW-1 and Gurbachan Das, Constables, from Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, were on patrol duty near village Pandori Bibi, where at about 1.30 or 2.00 p.m. they observed Tarsem Singh, accused coming from the opposite side carrying a bag on his head. He was apprehended by ASI who on search of the gunny bag, recovered 15 kilograms of poppy husk. The ASI then prepared ruqa Ex. PB and sent the same to the police station for the registration of the case and formal FIR Ex. PB/1 was registered. On the completion of the investigation and on the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, finding that the seized articles were poppy husk the accused was challaned and brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined the two police officials mentioned above and also relied upon the report of the Chemical examiner.

(3.) THE only point urged by Mr. J.B.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the appellant is that it had now been categorically settled by the Supreme Court that in case the offer envisaged the Section 50 of the Act was not made to an accused and this mandatory provision ignored, that by itself vitiated the conviction. In support of his contention, he has relied upon State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR 736 and Mohinder Kumar v. The State of Panaji Goa 1995(2) RCR 599. These two judgments clearly make out that in case an offer in terms of Section 50 of the Act is not made to an accused by the person who has apprehended him, that by itself vitiates the conviction. In Mohinder Kumar's case (supra) it has also been held that even when the meeting between the accused and the police party was a chance meeting the offer in terms of Section 50 of the Act had to be made provided the apprehension of that accused had taken place on account of his conduct which has aroused the suspicions of the police party. It is the case on all hands that no offer under Section 50 of the Act had been made by the police officials. The conviction of the accused thus cannot be sustained. This appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment set aside and the accused acquitted of the charges levelled against him. <OP>Trainee2</OP>