STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17.4.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, recording acquittal of the sole accused -respondent in an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), registered for he was found in possession of 15 bags of poppy husk, each containing 40 kgs, without any licence or permit.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 15.7.1992, SI Ram Kumar (PW4) along with HC Jagtar Singh (PW2) and other police officials, was present at the T Point of village Seera. At that time, in another vehicle, namely, Allwyn Nishan, being driven by Niranjan Singh, ASI Jaspal Singh (PW3) and HC Ajit Singh, also reached there. SI Ram Kumar received a secret information at that time that accused Swaran Singh son of Dalip Singh of village Gadhapur was selling poppy husk in his house constructed in the fields and in case of a raid, the contraband item in huge quantity could be recovered. The information, prima facie, found to be reliable, was sent by way of ruqa (Ex.PF) to the Police Station. A formal FIR (Ex.PF/1) was recorded on that basis. Accordingly, a raid -party was constituted which proceeded towards village Gadhapur. On the way, one Sunder Singh was associated, and thereafter, house of the accused was raided, which was situated within the revenue limits of village Gadhapur. The accused was arrested by the SI and interrogated. During that course, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PC) that he had concealed 15 bags of poppy husk in a room of his house, where the wheat chaff was stored. According to the prosecution case, this information was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The disclosure statement (Ex.PC) was reduced into writing, whereat the accused impressed his thumb mark, which was attested by PW Sunder Singh and ASI Jaspal Singh (PW3). This is also a prosecution case that at that stage the accused was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but since he reposed faith in SI Ram Kumar, 15 bags of contraband item were recovered by the police after removing the wheat chaff. Thereafter, two samples of 250 grams each bag were taken out from 15 bags. Thus, in total, 30 samples were taken, and the remaining quantities being 39 -1/2 kgs in each bag were separated. In total 30 parcels of samples and 15 parcels of the remaining quantities were thus prepared. The SI put his seal bearing the impression 'RK'. Vide the recovery memo (Ex.PD), the parcels were taken into possession. From personal search also, Rs. 150/ -were recovered from the accused and were taken into possession vide the recovery memo (Ex.PE). A rough site plan (Ex.PF) of the site of recovery was prepared. On return of the police party to the Police Station, SI Ram Kumar (PW4) deposited the case property with the samples, with MHC Sukhbir Singh (PW1). Next day, the case property was produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner and on receipt of a report (Ex.PA), which disclosed the nature of contraband, being churapoppy -heads, containing the ingredients of Morphine and Maconic Acid, a challan was laid against the accused. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions and the accused was tried upon a charge under Section 15 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Finally, the trial of the accused ended in an order of acquittal by the impugned judgment.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab, the premises in question, being the place of recovery, was in exclusive possession of the accused respondent and a huge quantity of the contraband item could not have been planted upon the accused. This is also her submission that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not mandatory and now they are required only in the case of search of person, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in : 2005CriLJ2208 (State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar). This is further submitted that the time of recovery being 2.00 P.M., in day time, provisions of Section 42(1) of the Act, if not strictly adhered to due to paucity of time, could not have caused any prejudice to the rights of the accused respondent.