VEER SINGH ALIAS VEERU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been convicted for offence under Section 8/ 21(c), N.D.P.S. Act ('the Act', for short), having been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, and having been fined with Rupees one lack, and further directed to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment, the appellant Veer Singh alias Veeru, has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.10.2005, at 7.00 a.m., the S.H.O., Hanumangarh Junction, received a secret information that Veer Singh alias Veeru, resident of Satipura, was standing on the corner of Fatehpur, turn; he is wearing a blue stripped shirt and is covered with a blue Chadar (bed sheet). According to the informant, he was carrying smack with him. In case he were intercepted, the police was likely to recover smack from him. Having received this information, the police took Gurdeep Singh alias Babee and Hakam Singh, as recovery witnesses. The S.H.O. also informed the higher officers and left the police station. Around 8.30 a.m., the police saw a person, who matched the description given by the informant. When the person saw the police party, he started to run. However, the police intercepted him and asked his name. He informed the police party that his name is Veer Singh alias Veeru. n accordance with Section 50 of the Act, he was given two options of either being searched before a Gazetted Officer, or before a Magistrate. The appellant opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Therefore, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Dr. Nitindeep (P.W.10) was called since he was a Gazetted Officer. Before Dr. Nitindeep (P.W.10), the recovery proceedings were initiated. It was discovered that the Chadar worn by the appellant contained a plastic bag. When the plastic bag was opened, it was found to contain three transparent bags. Out of those three transparent bags, two bags contained brown coloured powder, and the third bag contained solid matter, using the D.D. Kit, the substance was tested; it was found to be smack. In total, 590 grams of smack was recovered from the personal search of the appellant. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 8/ 21 of the Act.

(2.) In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and submitted seven documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 17.7.2010, the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this criminal appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been followed. According to the testimony of Dr. Nitindeep (P.W.10), he had clearly admitted that a copy of the notice under Section 50 of the Act was not given to the appellant. Instead, the original copy of the notice was given to him, and the option given by him was recorded on the original copy itself. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it was apparent that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 have not been adhered to. Therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated. Secondly, the independent witness Gurdeep Singh (P.W.4) has turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution case merely rests upon the testimonies of police officers. Thirdly, although according to the prosecution, the appellant was not arrested till 8.30 a.m. on 8.10.2005, but according to Ravinder Singh (D.W.6) when he had reached the Police Station, Hanumangarh around 7-8 a.m., he found that the appellant was already locked up. Moreover, the appellant had told him that he had been rounded up with by the police in connection with a murder case, which had occurred in Sarekha, and that he had been in the police station since 4.00 a.m. Moreover, Veer Singh had examined himself as a witness. According to him, he is a member of Bahujan Samaj Party, earlier he used to be the district President and had fought the Lok Sabha election. He further claimed that there is a land dispute between him and Dal Singh. Dal Singh happens to be related to high police officers. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the present case, he further claims that he was locked up with Richhpal (D.W.2) and Mohd. Salam (D.W.5). Thus, according to the learned counsel, the defence has been able to establish the fact that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case due to animosity between the appellant and the police. However, this aspect of the case has been ignored by the learned Judge. Therefore, the learned Judge is not justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8/ 21 of the Act.