STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for leave to appeal and Appeal arise out of judgment dated 9.2.2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 92 of 25.5.2005, acquitting accused-respondent Kashmir Singh of charge punishable under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for having been found in conscious possession of 525 Kgs. of poppy husk without a valid permit or licence.

(2.) IT appears from case file and arguments raised before us, that on 28.2.2005, a police party headed by SI Tejinder Singh (PW2) which consisted of ASI Gurcharan Singh (PW4) and other police personnel, was present at canal bridge in the area of Balad Khurd in connection with patrolling duty and checking of suspected persons. They were using a Government vehicle (No. PBI3-M-2034) for their duties. In the meantime, one Surinder Singh son of Joginder Singh also reached there, with whom the Investigating Officer got engaged in conversation. It was 5.30 a.m. when a jeep (No. HR-22-C-6615) arrived from towards village Mataran. It was signaled to stop by the Investigating Officer, but it stopped only at some distance. All four inmates of the vehicle on seeing presence of police party, started running away, however, one of them was over-powered and apprehended by the Investigating Officer with help of police party. On enquiry, that accused disclosed his identity as also of other three persons who ran away from spot. He told that one of these three persons who ran way, was Ajmer Singh, Jat, r/o Naiwala and two others were Roshan Lal son of Bagan and Dharama Singh son of Chuhar Singh. As police was suspicious about gunny bags lying in jeep, accused-respondent was told that these bags were required to be searched. Accused was given an option regarding search to be made in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accused-respondent opted to be searched in presence of a Gazetted officer, vide statement, Ex.P1. He marked his thumb impression which was attested by witnesses. A wireless message was flashed to D.S.P., requesting him to reach that spot. D.S.P. reached there and disclosed his identity to accused. He gave separate option to accused as to whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accused-respondent reposed confidence in D.S.P., as per consent statement Ex.P2. On directions of D.S.P., the Investigating Officer conducted search of 15 gunny bags and found them to contain contraband item poppy husk. From each gunny bag, the Investigating Officer took out two samples of 250 grams each. Remaining bulk of each gunny bag, on weighment, was found to be 34 kgs. 500 grams. Two separate sets parcels were drawn, namely, one for samples and other for bulk items, which were kept in gunny bags. They were sealed with impression 'TS' of the Investigating Officer and 'NP' of the DSP. Case properties were taken into custody vide recovery memo Ex. P4. Vehicle was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.P5. Statement of accused-respondent in the nature of Farad Jamatalashi Ex.P-6, was recorded by following necessary formalities. He was also supplied grounds of arrest vide Ex.P-7. A sample chit of seal Ex.P-3, was prepared and the seal of Investigating Officer, after use, was handed over to ASI Gurcharan Singh. Ruqa, Ex. P8, was sent to police station, which led to registration of FIR, Ex. P-9. During the course of further investigation, a rough site plan of the scene of recovery, Ex.P10, was drawn. On return to police station, case properties were deposited with Moharar Head Constable Gurmel Singh. Investigating Officer made an application, Ex.PH, for attestation of case property and on application, Ex.P-12, case properties were deposited in judicial Malkhana vide order of Court, Ex.P-13. After receiving chemical examination report, Ex.P-45, and completion of necessary investigation, a challan was laid against the accused-respondent. Finally, learned trial Court framed a charge under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, against accused respondent. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) WE have heard learned State Counsel.