SMT. DARSHANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears on behalf of appellant, although this is an old Criminal Appeal of 1998. Appellant who was granted suspension of sentence way back on 21.09.1998, is in a position after her release from jail to pursue her appeal. She has also not made any request in writing for discharge of Vakalatnama of her counsel on record, nor is there a request to provide assistance of a counsel from the Punjab State Legal Services Authority or an Amicus Curiae to be appointed by this Court. In this background, we proceed to dispose of this criminal appeal in terms of ratio of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in : 2008 ACJ 367 (S.C.) : 2008 (1) Criminal Court Cases 894 (S.C.) : 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 133, Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of U.P., after scrutiny of appeal records with the assistance of learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

(2.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment dated 18.07.1998, passed in RBT/Sessions Case No. 29 of 1997, holding accused -appellant guilty of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and sentencing her to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh for recovery of 40 kgs. poppy husk after intensive interrogations in police custody, at her instance, from the premises alleged to be under her control.

(3.) IN his cross -examinations, this witness has stated that accused Smt. Darshana was known to him from before. Earlier also, a case under the NDPS Act was registered against her. He did not recollect the outcome of that case. This witness admitted that no lady constable was associated at the time of raiding the house of accused -appellant and taking her in custody. He also admitted that accused -appellant Smt. Darshana was searched inside the police station after calling lady Constables Asha Rani and Raj Rani. This witness has further admitted that in the list of witnesses, he did not include the names of those lady Constables. He furthermore admitted that he did not prepare a separate memo regarding the search of house of accused Crl. appellant. DSP Chahal had not done any writing work and dictated the memo to ASI Surinder Singh. DSP Chahal also kept the seal samples on a piece of paper. DSP Chahal PW5 admitted in his cross -examinations that the place of recovery is a thoroughfare and he did not join any public witness at the time of taking samples. Seal samples were kept by him in blank paper. ASI Surinder Singh PW6 in his examination -in -chief stated that accused Smt. Darshana disclosed that she had kept concealed two bags of poppy husk containing 20 kgs. each inside her residence under a cot where a bunker is made and that she could get the same recovered. This witness also stated that DSP Chahal kept sample seals and filled two FSL forms on the spot. He further stated that he cannot tell as to who was the owner of that house from where the alleged recovery was effected and the house only consisted of two rooms. Though several ladies of the locality of accused Smt. Darshana were present, but none of them was associated with recovery and further accused -appellant Darshana alone was present in her house when the police party had visited there. ASI Hardeep Singh could not answer as to whether the secret information was sent to a senior officer.