AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal filed by Amarjit Singh, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 8-4-1999 passed by be court of AddI. Sessions Judge. Ferozepur, who convicted the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for one year.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 14-1-1998 ASI Bachan Singh was on patrol duty along with ASI Lal Singh. HC Jaswinder Singh and other police officials. They were proceeding from village Kat Ise Khan to village Cheema in a Govt. Canter. When, at about 9.25 a.m. they reached near the canal bridge in the area of village Cheema, they noticed the accused coming from the opposite side carrying a white fertilizer bag on his head. The appellant on seeing the police party turned towards his left along the canal bank, however, on the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended. The 1.0. told to the accused that he wanted to take the search of the bag and whether the appellant was interested to give the search before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused told to the 1.0. that he would like to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer, upon which a wireless message was sent to the DSP. Zira, but he was not found in his office and he was stated to be out of station in connection with V.V.I.P. duty The 1.0. then requested Harbans Singh, DSP. Head-quarters, to reach at the spot, who reached at the spot at about 11 AM. DSP Harbans Lal told to the accused about himself that he was a Gazetted officer and was posted as DSP. Ferozepur. Headquarters, and that the gunny bag in his possession was to be searched. The DSP, again, gave an option to the accused if he wanted to get the search conducted before some Magistrate. The accused, however, opted for his search before the DSP, regarding which a memo was prepared which was thumb marked by the accused and attested by the DSP. ASI Lal Singh PW-2 and ASI Bachan Singh. PW -3. Thereafter, the search of the fertilizer bag was conducted, which was found -to contain poppy husk. The police tried to join independent witness on the spot but none was available. 250 Grams of poppy husk was separated by way of sample and the remaining poppy husk weighed 13 kgs. which was put in the same gunny bag. Ex. M.O. 1. The sample of the poppy husk and the remaining poppy husk in the fertilizer bag were separately sealed by the 1.0. with his own seal bearing inscription BS. He also prepared a specimen seal, Ex. P-2 of the seal. The DSP also sealed the sample, the fertilizer bag and Ex. P-2 with his own seal bearing inscription HL. The entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PS, which was attested by the DSP. ASI Lal Singh and HC Jaswinder Singh. On further search, of the appellant a sum of Rs. 50/- was recovered which was also taken into possession. Ruqa, Ex. P-7, was sent to the police station for the registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused before effecting his arrest regarding which Memo. Ex. PS, was prepared. On return to the police station, the entire case property and the accused were produced before the SHO, who resealed the case property with his own seal bearing inscription AS and the case property was taken into custody vide memo Ex. P-1O. The sample of poppy huskT was sent to the office of the Assistant Chemical Examiner who vide his report. Ex. P-li, found the contents as poppy heads.

(3.) On the completion of the investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned in the court of the trial Judge, who vide order dated 29-4-1998, charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 15 of the Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.