ANGREJ SINGH @ GEJA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dtd. 24/8/2016 rendered by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, in Case No.300 dtd. 11/7/2014 whereby appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") has been convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 26/8/2013 ASI Paramjit Singh along with police officials was present at Badal-Miyan Road in the area of village Naruana in connection with Nakabandi. It was 03.00 P.M. In the meantime, a Maruti car bearing registration No.HR23B- 5790 was intercepted. The accused tried to run away. He was apprehended. Accused disclosed his name as Angrej Singh @ Geja. In the meantime, Kuldeep Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Amarpura Basti, Bathinda, joined the police party. Thereafter accused Angrej Singh was apprised of the fact that search of the car was to be conducted and he had a legal right to get the search of the car conducted either before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. However accused reposed confidence in ASI Paramjit Singh. His consent memo was prepared. From the search of car, two cans of 5 liters each containing intoxicant mixture were recovered. A sample of 100 ml each was separated from both the cans and were converted into sample parcels. Both the cans containing intoxicant mixture to the tune of 4 litres 900 ml and 3 litres 400 ml were also converted into sample parcels. These were duly sealed. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. Investigation was commenced. Accused was arrested. Case property was produced before the SHO. Challan was put up after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. Statement of appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 Appellant also examined four witnesses in support of his case. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal.