Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. State Ofp B.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2010CRA/1888/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of a criminal appeal filed by an appellant convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possessing opium. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, finding the prosecution evidence and procedural regularity satisfactory.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentencing judgment dated 24.10.2002 affirmed; appeal dismissed.

Raj Kumar Vs State Ofp B. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.Appeal No. 1888-SB of 2002

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 1888-SB of 2002 Date of Decision: July 01 , 2010

¶5

Raj Kumar @ Raju

¶6

...........Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

..........Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Deepak Garg, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Arshwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab

¶12

Sabina, J.

¶13

Accused-Raj Kumar @ Raju was convicted for an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`the Act' for short) vide judgment dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar. Vide order of even date, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh. In default, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months . Hence, the present appeal by the appellantaccused.

¶14

The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:-

¶15

Crl.Appeal No. 1888-SB of 2002

¶16

¶17

“The facts culminating into the present challan against accused Raj Kumar alias Raju son of Hans Raj aged about 35/36 years for commission of an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after to be referred as the Act), lie in a narrow compass. On 25.2.1999, a police party comprising ASI Gurchand Singh, PW1 ASI Baldev Singh PW2 and others had held a naka at Husnar chowk, Gidderbaha. At about 1.30 P.M. they saw two cars bearing No. DL-1CB-1322 and that bearing No. PB-02A 3182 coming from the side of Malout. On reaching near the police party they collided with each other. Immediately after the said collision, accused Raj Kumar got down from car No. DL.1CB1322 and ran towards village Husnar carrying something. On suspicion being raised, he was chased and apprehended from near old grain market. In the meantime, Nachhatar Singh an independent witness also reached there and was joined in the police party. Accused was told that the police party wanted to conduct his personal search as he was suspected to be carrying some contraband article. He was given an option that he could get his search conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. A consent memo Ex.P.1 was prepared to that effect. A wireless message was sent to DSP Gidderbaha, namely, Ashok Bath, who reached the spot and disclosed his identity to the accused. Personal search of the accused was conducted in his presence whereupon 10 kgs of opium was recovered wrapped in a glazed paper. 20 grams of opium was separated as sample. The sample

¶18

Crl.Appeal No. 1888-SB of 2002

¶19

¶20

and remaining opium were separately sealed and put in a plastic dabi as well as container of `Dalda Ghee' The sample and remaining opium were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.3. Rough site plan Ex.P8 of the place of recovery was prepared. Ruqa Ex.P.6 was sent to the police station, Gidderbaha on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P.7 was registered against the accused under Section 18 of the Act. After registration of the case the accused was formally arrested and a memo Ex.P9 containing grounds of his arrest was prepared. Personal search memo Ex.P5 of the accused was also prepared.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

¶22

The prosecution case is that on 25.2.1999, the appellant was apprehended and on his search, opium was recovered from him. 20 grams of opium was separated as a sample and was put in a plastic box, whereas, the remaining opium on weighment came to 9 kilograms 980 grams. The sample as well as the remaining opium were made into sealed parcels and were taken in possession. In order to prove the alleged recovery, prosecution examined PW1 SI Gurchand Singh, PW2 ASI Baldev Singh and DSP Ashok Bath PW5. The said witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duties and had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Before the appellant was searched, he was given an option by the Investigating Officer that he could get his search effected in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetteed Officer. Appellant opted that his search may be effected in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The consent memo in this

¶23

¶24

Crl.Appeal No. 1888-SB of 2002

¶25

regard was prepared. DSP Ashok Baath reached at the spot and he disclosed his identity to the appellant and, thereafter, recovery of opium was effected from the appellant. The opium was held by the appellant in a shawl. PW3 MHC Jit Singh deposed that on 26.2.1999, he had been handed over the case property by SI Gurchand Singh and he had handed over the sample to Constable Jagga Singh along with sample seal for depositing the same in the Office of Chemical Examiner. Constable Jagga Singh PW4 has corroborated the statement of PW3 to the effect that he had been handed over the sample on 8.3.1999 for depositing the same in the Office of the Chemical Examiner. PW1 SI Gurchand Singh deposed that he had kept sample parcel and the parcel containing poppy husk in his possession and has produced the accused before the Area Magistrate on 26.2.1998 and had, thereafter, deposited the case property with MHC. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Hence no ground for interference is made out.

¶26

Dismissed.

¶27

(Sabina) Judge

¶28

July 01, 2010 arya

Raj Kumar v. State Ofp B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State Ofp B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Saini Vs State of Haryana

Parshant Goyal Vs State of Punjab

Vipin Kumar Vs Kehar Singh and Ors.

Angrejo Vs Sewa Singh and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Parshad Vs Prem Kumar.

Prabjot Kaur Vs State of Punjab