SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this appeal is for setting-aside the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2005 as well as the order of sentence vide which the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 04 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 months.

(2.) The prosecution examined Constable Malkiat Singh as PW1, HC Kashmir Singh as PW2, ASI Ajit Singh as PW3, SI Charanjit Singh as PW4 and HC Joginder Singh as PW5 and closed the evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, the statement of appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire incriminating evidence, which the prosecution produced against him, was put to him and the appellant/accused denied the allegation of prosecution and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. However, no defence evidence has been led by the appellant/accused.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Investigating Officer has not prepared any inventory at the time of production of the case property before the Illaqa Magistrate and therefore, there is clear non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. It is further argued that the statement of this witness clearly show that even the compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act was not made as in the Ruqa, it is not mentioned that the report was sent to the superior officer within a period of 48 hours and further in the recovery memo Ex.PD, neither the SHO nor any witness has signed and therefore, the recovery from the appellant is highly doubtful. It is also submitted that as per the version in the FIR, the appellant was not arrested at the spot as it is the case of the prosecution that he ran away in the wheat crop fields and therefore, even the identity of the appellant is not properly proved.