HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I dispose of two appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 791-SB of 1997 (Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Appeal No. 811-SB of 1997 (Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab) as both the appeals are arising out of common judgment and order dated 4th October, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted both the appellants under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100,000/- or in default of payment to fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :- On 8th March, 1994 Jarnail Singh, D.S.P. Ajnala, received a secret information that accused Sukhdev Singh son of Piara Lal, who had been running a shop at Chamiari Road, in front of Aneja Dairy, was dealing in opium powder in small packets, through his servants, and, if raid was conducted, he could be apprehended along with large quantity of opium powder. On receipt of secret information, Jarnail Singh, D.S.P., recorded the ruqa (Ex.PF) and sent it to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal F.I.R. (Ex.PF/1) was recorded. Shri Jarnail Singh, D.S.P., along with other police officials, was proceeding to the shop of accused-appellant Sukhdev Singh. On the way Shri Mohan Singh, Drugs Inspector, was associated in the Police Party. Thereafter the Police Party visited the shop of Sukhdev Singh appellant, who was not present there. At that time Harbhajan Singh appellant was found present at the shop. The D.S.P. told Harbhajan Singh appellant about the purpose of his visit and offered him to get his search conducted either in the presence of a Magistrate or in his presence. The accused reposed confidence in him and then the D.S.P. conducted the search of the shop and found two fertilizer bags, containing some powder, lying there. Shri Jarnail Singh, D.S.P., took sample of 100 grams from each bag. Each gunny bag was weighed and one bag contained 15 Kgs. and 450 grams of powder and the other contained 4 Kgs. of powder. D.S.P. Jarnail Singh sealed the samples and the gunny bags with his seal, bearing inscription 'JS' and the entire case property was seized by the police vide recovery memo. (Ex.PD). Harbhajan Singh appellant could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the opium powder. From the further search of appellant Harbhajan Singh, he was found in possession of Rs. 1,500/- notes of different denominations, which were seized vide separate recovery memo. (Ex.PE). The D.S.P. recorded the statement of the accused under Section 161, Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation it was found that the shop in question was allegedly in possession of Shri Sukhdev Singh appellant. Resultantly, it was noticed that he was also in conscious possession of the opium powder. Both the appellants were challaned under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, District Amritsar, who supplied copies of the documents to the accused- appellants and vide commitment order dated 14th June, 1995 committed them to the Court of Session in order to face the trial. Vide order dated 2nd August, 1995 both the accused were charge-sheeted on the allegation that on 8th March, 1994 in the area of Ajnala both of them were found in possession of 19 Kgs. and 650 grams of powder, which contained amobarbital and thereby they allegedly committed offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed a joint trial.

(3.) THE accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case were put to them. The accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and claimed innocence. The defence of Sukhdev Singh appellant was to the following effect :- "I am innocent. I am neither the owner of any shop nor I have any shop in Ajnala at Chamiari Road. The question of recovery from my shop, therefore, does not arise. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case by the police." The defence of Harbhajan Singh appellant was as follows :- "I am innocent. I am resident of Ajnala. A day prior to my arrest in this case I was apprehended by the Police from the Bus Stand, Ajnala, when I was going to board a bus for Amritsar as I had to make purchases from there. At that time I had Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 2100/- with me. The police took me to the Police Station, Ajnala, where I was unlawfully detained till I was showed arrested in this case. My money was also taken by the police." In defence the accused-appellants did not examine any witness.