SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -Surinder Singh, tried for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) in Sessions Case No. 57 of 10.5.1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge Sangrur was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused Surinder Singh has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 9.11.1992 at about 7.00 PM when Jangir Singh, ASI, of Police Station, Dirba alongwith Head Constable-Balihar Singh, Constable-Nirmal Singh, Constable-Krishan Kumar and others, was near a bridge of sem nallah in the area of village Toor Banjara on G.T. Road on patrol duty, Bant Singh met them and was talking with them. At that time, a truck was coming at a very high speed from the side of Dirba. On suspicion, ASI-Jangir Singh stopped the truck but, the truck driver-Surinder Singh alias Chhinda, (the accused-appellant) jumped out of the truck and ran away. He was overpowered and questioned. ASI Jangir Singh informed him that he was to search the truck and asked him whether he wanted the search to be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer/magistrate. Accused-appellant replied that they could make the search and his statement analyst (Ex.PA) was recorded. ASI - Jangir Singh searched the truck bearing registration No. HR-11-2181 after removing the tarpaulin. There were 40 gunny bags each containing 35 kgs. of poppy husk. The poppy husk in these 40 gunny bags was put on the tarpaulin in a heap, mixed and out of the same, two samples of 250 gms. each, were separately taken into parcels. The remaining poppy husk was put into 39 gunny bags each weighing 35 kgs and one weighing 34 kgs, of poppy husk. They were sealed and the seal was handed over to Bant Singh. The samples of poppy husk, the 40 gunny bags of poppy husk, the rope, the tarpaulin and the truck were taken into possession under Memo Ex.PB.

(3.) THE question is whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt.