High Court permitted an appeal against conviction under the NDPS Act, quashing the lower court order due to procedural irregularities and lack of proof regarding possession and arrest compliance.
Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence reversed; appellant acquitted of the charges; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002 Date of Decision : 01.05.2014
Rani
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN .
Present : Mr. Kushaldeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. D.S.Virk, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.
Rani, a convict in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2002, has brought this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2002 passed by Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar (trial judge, for short), convicting and sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years in addition to payment of fine amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-2-
1985, (for short, the Act).
State is contesting the appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through record of the case.
Factual Matrix :
Appellant, alongwith her husband named Bur aka Dalbir Ram, was arraigned as an accused in First Information Report (FIR, for short) No.160 of 31.08.2000 recorded at Police Station, Phillaur, under Section 15 of the Act.
Sum and substance of story of the prosecution is that on 31.08.2000, a police party, under the leadership of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Yograj (Investigating Officer), held a picket in village Jajja Khurd Chowk Apra where the Investigating Officer received a secret information that in an abandoned tubewell room on the fields of Mohinder Singh of village Khanpur, who was putting up in United States of America (USA), the appellant and her husband Bur Singh were selling Poppy Husk and had parked their scooter nearby. Investigating Officer wrote a note (commonly called 'a ruqa'), Exhibit PB, whereupon FIR, Exhibit PB/1, came to be recorded. Investigating Officer then raided the disclosed place, after joining Gurmej Singh as an independent witness. Appellant and Bur Singh, on sight of the police posse, escaped from the spot on their scooter towards canal bank. However, PW Gurmej Singh identified the two. On being informed, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Sajjan Singh Cheema also reached the spot. On search of the room, ten bags, containing Poppy Hus k, were found to be lying therein.
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-3-
Investigating Officer separated from each bag samples weighing 250 grams each, sealed the sample parcels, as also bags containing the remainder weighing 34 kilograms and 750 grams each bag, with his seal bearing impression “YR”, prepared a sample seal, handed over the seal, after use, to Head Constable (HC) Karnail Singh and took the sample parcel and bags of remainder (Exhibits P1 to P10) in police possession vide memorandum, Exhibit PA, after these were sealed by the DSP with his seal bearing impression “SS”. DSP retained his seal. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of witnesses, drew a site plan, Exhibit PC, of the place of recovery and caused the sample parcels tested by Chemical Examiner.
On completion of investigation and receipt of report, Exhibit PD, from Chemical Examiner, a report, as required by Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., was prepared and was presented before the trial judge, who complied with the provisions of Section 207, Cr.P.C., and upon consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted therewith, and after hearing submissions of the appellant and the prosecution, formed an opinion that there was ground for presuming that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act, which was triable exclusively by him, and, accordingly, framed in writing a charge against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. It may be added here that Bur Singh could not be arrested and the appellant alone was put to trial.
Prosecution examined Investigating Officer, ASI Yograj as PW2 and HC Karnail Singh as PW1 to bring on record recovery of the contraband
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-4-
and other aspects of investigation; ASI Pardeep Singh as PW3 to show that the appellant was arrested on 08.03.2002; DSP Jasdip Singh as PW5 to say that the Investigating Officer, before deposit of the case property in the police Malkhana had produced it before him; HC Jaswinder Singh as PW6 to prove his affidavit, Exhibit PF, to the effect that case property was deposited with him and he had sent the sealed sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner, and CII Amarjit Singh as PW4 to place on record his affidavit, Exhibit PE, to the effect that the sealed sample parcels were taken to, and deposited in, the office of Chemical Examiner by him.
After witnesses for the prosecution had been examined and before she was called on for her defence, trial judge questioned the appellant generally on the case so as to afford her an opportunity to explain the inculpating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution in its evidence. Appellant, while denying these circumstances and reiterating plea of her innocence and false implication, came out with a plea that on her and her husband’s request the matter was enquired into by Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Arun Pal Singh, who not only found them innocent but also passed strictures against the Investigating Officer.
On being called upon to enter upon her defence, appellant tendered copy of the enquiry report as Exhibit D2.
When evidence in defence was complete, Public Prosecutor summed up his case and the defence replied to it.
From the submissions made for and against the charge, trial judge
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-5-
identified for adjudication following points:
2. What is the effect of non-examination of PW Gurmej Singh?
3. Whether prosecution story is not plausible?
4. Whether the identity of the accused is not established?
5. What is the effect of favourable report in the reinvestigation conducted by ASP Arun Pal Singh? and
6. Whether link evidence is missing? ”
On appreciation of evidence in the light of submissions made at the bar, trial Court found answers to the above stated points propitious to plea of the prosecution, held the prosecution to have proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced the appellant as hereinbefore stated.
For and against the impugned judgment and order :
According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, prosecution has utterly failed to connect the appellant with the contraband; she is not shown to be arrested on the spot; the tubewell room from wherein the contraband is shown to have been recovered, belongs to PW Gurmej Singh’s brother and not to the appellant; appellant’s identification as perpetrator of the crime has remained unproved; provisions of Sections 42 and 52-A of the Act have remained uncomplied with; no independent witness has
been examined in support of case of the prosecution; even DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema has been kept away from the witness stand; association of PW Gurmej Singh with the raid and recovery is highly doubtful because were it that he was so associated seal after use would have been handed over to him and not to HC
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-6-
Karnail Singh; the seal remained with HC Karnail Singh, an official who was junior and subordinate to the Investigating Officer, which dents the credibility of the prosecution story; and case of the prosecution is sated with contradictions, variations and discrepancies.
Nevertheless, learned State counsel has defended the impugned judgment and order as indubitable on any count.
Nothing more has been urged on either side.
Relevant statutory provisions :
Before entering an inquisition into the submissions made for and against the impugned judgment and order, as noticed hereinbefore, it is deemed appropriate to have a voyage across the provisions of the Act germane to disposal of the case on hand.
The Act was enacted to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the matters connected therewith and with the purpose to consolidate and amend the law and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Section 2(xiv) of the Act defines "narcotic drug" to mean coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs. "Illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, has been defined in Section 2(viiia) of the Act, inter alia , to mean :
" (iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those referred to in subclauses (i) to (iii); or
(v) handling or letting out any premises for the carrying on
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-7-
of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) " "Commercial quantity" has been defined in Section 2(viia) to mean any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette. Indisputably, the commercial quantity prescribed for poppy straw is 50 kilograms.
"International Conventions" have been specified in Section 2(ix)
of the Act.
Chapter II of the Act enables the Central Government to take measures as may be necessary or expedient inter alia for the purpose of preventing and combating abuse of and illicit traffic therein including constitution of an authority or hierarchy of authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under the Act and for taking measures with respect to such of the matters referred to in sub-section (2) as being specified therein, subject, of course, to the supervision and control of the Central Government.
Chapter III provides for prohibition, control and regulation. Section 8 inter alia bars possession, sale, purchase, transport of any narcotic drugs except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and the extent provided by the provisions of the Act or the Rules or orders framed thereunder. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules inter alia permitting and regulating possession of narcotic substances, subject, however, to the provisions contained in Section 8 thereof.
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-8-
Chapter IV provides for offences and penalties. Section 15 of the Act provides for punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw.
Punishment under Section 15 of the Act, in case of commercial quantity provides for rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but may extend to twenty years in addition to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Proviso appended to Section 15 of the Act empowers the Court, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, to impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
Section 35 of the Act provides for presumption of culpable mental state. It also provides that an accused may prove that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence under the Act.
Section 54 of the Act places the burden of proof on the accused as regards possession of the contraband to account for the same satisfactorily.
Section 42 of the Act provides for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without any warrant or authorization by an officer who is otherwise empowered by the Central Government by general or special order. If the authorities or officers specified therein have any reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in respect of which an offence punishable under the Act has been committed, they may enter into and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunrise and sunset and detain, search and arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under the Act. Section 42
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-9-
runs thus:
“ 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.
(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is embowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset,--
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance: Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub- section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. ”
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-10-
Section 43, however, empowers an officer of any department mentioned in Section 42 of the Act to detain and search any person, who, he has reason to believe, has committed an offence punishable under the Act in a public place. Section 50 of the Act provides for the conditions under which search of persons are to be conducted. Section 51 of the Act provides for application of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 52 of the Act provides for disposal of persons arrested and articles seized.
Section 52-A of the Act provides for disposal of seized narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances; sub-section (2) thereof reads as under :
" (2) Where any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances has been seized and forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub- section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or, psychotropic substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any purpose of, -
(a) Certifying correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) Taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs substances and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) Allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. "
Burden of proof :
Provisions of the Act and the punishment prescribed therein being indisputably stringent, as also the presumption of guilt emerging from
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-11-
possession of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution, i.e., 'proof beyond all reasonable doubt' would be more onerous. A heightened scrutiny test would be necessary to be invoked. It is so because, on one hand, the Court must strive towards giving effect to the parliamentary object and intent in the light of the international conventions, but, on the other, it is also necessary to uphold the individual human rights and dignity as provided for under the UN Declaration of Human Rights by insisting upon scrupulous compliance of the provisions of the Act for the purpose of upholding the democratic values. It is necessary for giving effect to the concept of 'wider civilization'. The court must always remind itself that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of proof. A higher degree of assurance, thus, would be necessary to convict an accused. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh , 1999(3) RCR(Crl.) 533 : (1999) 3 SCC 977, it was stated :
" It must be borne in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed. "
[See also Ritesh Chakravarty v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2006(4) RCR(Crl.) 480 : 2006(3) Apex Criminal 406 : JT 2006 (12) SC 416]
It is also necessary to bear in mind that superficially a case may have an ugly look and thereby, prima facie , shaking the conscience of the Court but it is well settled that suspicion, however high may be, can under no circumstances, be held to be a substitute for legal evidence.
Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-12-
regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal of these provisions would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden rests upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, the legal burden would shift. Even then, the standard of proof expected of the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of accused on the prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but it is 'preponderance of probability' on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.
With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband is essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused must be provided with opportunities to effectively defend himself. In Sheldrake v. Director of Public Prosecutions , (2005) 1 All ER 237 in the following terms :
" 21. From this body of authority certain principles may be derived. The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The convention does not outlaw
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-13-
presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirements of mens rea. But the substance and effect of any presumption adverse to a defendant must be examined, and must be reasonable. Relevant to any judgment on reasonableness or proportionality will be the opportunity given to the defendant to rebut the presumption, maintenance of the rights of the defence, flexibility in application of the presumption, retention by the court of a power to assess the evidence, the importance of what is at stake and the difficulty which a prosecutor may face in the absence of a presumption. Security concerns do not absolve member states from their duty to observe basic standards of fairness. The justifiability of any infringement of the presumption of innocence cannot be resolved by any rule of thumb, but on examination of all the facts and circumstances of the particular provision as applied in the particular case. " (emphasis added)
Possession of the contraband :
Admittedly, the appellant and her husband were not apprehended on the spot. As per story of the prosecution, Investigating Officer received the secret information, when he was present in village Jajja Khurd Chowk Apra, that the appellant and her husband were selling poppy husk while present in an abandoned tubewell room belonging to Mohinder Singh and their scooter was parked nearby. PW1, HC Karnail Singh, has revealed that the place, where secret information was received, had some kiosks around but no one from those kiosks was joined with the police party. Ruqa, Exhibit PB, memorandum of recovery, Exhibit PA, and the Investigating Officer, PW2-ASI Yograj, have not disclosed mode of conveyance used by the police party to reach the disclosed place but PW1, HC Karnail Singh has disclosed, under the stress of crossexamination, that the police party reached the disclosed place on a four wheeler
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-14-
(TATA 407) which was driven by a private driver, who remained present at the spot of recovery alongwith the police party, throughout. He also was not associated with the recovery. PW Gurmej Singh, according to prosecution version, was associated with the police party from canal bridge that fell on the way and DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema had also reached the spot and had witnessed the recovery. Gurmej Singh is brother of Mohinder Singh, owner of the tubewell room and has his fields abutting that room. Gurmej Singh and DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema have been kept away from the witness stand. Only evidence of the recovery of the contraband, thus, is the evidence of PW1, HC Karnail Singh and PW2, ASI Yograj. Both of them were posted in police post Apra. ASI Yograj, for reasons best known to him, opted not to hand over the seal, after use, either to PW Gurmej Singh or to driver of TATA 407 and, instead, handed it over to PW1, HC Karnail Singh, who was his subordinate and amenable to his instructions and directions. Why, how and from where this vehicle was acquired/arranged, has remained a mystery. As aforesaid, DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema has not come forward to state that he supervised the recovery and had put his seal bearing impression “SS” on the sample parcels and parcels of the remainder. May be, police officials are as good witnesses as any other witness and examination of an independent witness or say a public witness is not the requirement of law but prudence and fairplay certainly require that a person unconnected with the investigating agency and the occurrence comes forward to support the version put-forth by official witnesses. Driver of TATA 407, stated to have been used by the police party to
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-15-
reach the spot, has neither been identified nor examined as a witness. Even registration number and name of owner of the said vehicle have not been disclosed by prosecution. Receipt of payment of hire charges of the vehicle has not been made part of the record.
Examination of DSP Sajjan Singh Cheema was still more necessary to prove compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act and needless to state his non-examination has left compliance of the above stated mandatory provision unproved.
There is nothing available on record to show that the contraband was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as required by sub-section (2) of Section 52-A of the Act. Investigating Officer, while appearing as PW2, has admitted that the recovered contraband was not produced before the jurisdictional magistrate or any other Court. The bags carrying the contraband, when produced before the trial Court, did not carry particulars of the case.
Site-map, Exhibit PC, has interpolations which have not been explained. Still, it does not depict the place where the police party was stationed and where the appellant and her husband were seen to be present or running away. It also does not show the direction towards which the wifehusband duo allegedly ran away.
From the circumstances enlisted here-in-above, it is unmistakably noticeable that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove possession of the contraband by, or its recovery from, the appellant and her husband. Therefore, provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act have no application to the case.
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-16-
Identification of the appellant as perpetrator of the crime :
Case of the prosecution is that the informer had told names of the appellant and her husband. But the informer is not shown to have accompanied the police party to the disclosed place. Memorandum of recovery, Exhibit PA, does not say that the appellant and her husband were identified by anybody. According to the Investigating Officer (PW2), the appellant and her husband were identified by PW Gurmej Singh. PW1, HC Karnail Singh has taken upon himself the burden of saying that appellant and her husband were known to him, other police officials and PW Gurmej Singh. This, however, is an improvement as he is not shown to have so stated in statement, Exhibit DA, suffered by him under Section 161, Cr.P.C. PW2, ASI Yograj has stated that the appellant and her husband were identified by PW Gurmej Singh. Said Gurmej Singh, however, has not been examined as a witness. There is no one else to say that he identified the persons running from the spot as the appellant and her husband.
In view of the above, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden to prove that the persons who are said to have run away from the spot were the appellant and her husband.
Improbability of the prosecution story :
The informer is shown to have disclosed that the appellant and her husband were selling the contraband. However, no purchaser is shown to have been spotted by the police party. No scales and weights are shown to have been recovered. Each bag, statedly is shown to carry equal quantity of the
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-17-
contraband (35 kgs.) which belies prosecution story about sale of the contraband.
Scooter of the appellant and her husband, as per prosecution story, was parked near the tubewell room. Its registration number has not been noted down in the police record. The police party was comprised of ASI Yograj, HC Karnail Singh, HC Kulvir Singh, CI Balwinder Singh, and C Balkar Singh besides driver of TATA 407 and PW Gurmej Singh. The police officials must be carrying their service arms along. A vehicle make TATA 407 was at the disposal of the police party. Maize crop was standing in the field near the spot of recovery. It is unfathomable that the appellant and her husband could run away from in front of such a police contingent and were not even chased by the Investigating Officer. It is quite surprising to note that PW2, ASI Yograj has said in recovery memorandum, Exhibit PC, that on seeing the appellant and her husband fleeing, he and PW Gurmej Singh called them repeatedly to stop (which means he did nothing to catch them and even did not fire upon them to incapacitate them from running). According to him, HC Kulvir Singh and CI Balwinder Singh were sent to chase the appellant and her husband. They, however, have not been examined as witnesses to support this assertion. PW1, HC Karnail Singh has chosen to maintain complete silence in this regard.
According to Exhibit PA and PW1, HC Karnail Singh, the appellant and her husband fled the scene on their scooter but according to PW2, ASI Yograj, they took the scooter later on.
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-18-
Circumstances enumerated in the above paragraph render story of the prosecution highly improbable.
Conclusion :
The circumstances enumerated in the foregoing paragraphs, which speak volumes about false implication of the appellant and her husband, have been brushed aside by the trial judge to convict the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2002 passed by Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar convicting and sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years in addition to payment of fine amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, deserve to be and are hereby set aside and reversed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence of which she has been charged and convicted. The appeal, accordingly succeeds and is accepted.
The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are discharged.
Before parting with this judgment, I feel it apt to express my dismay about the manner the investigation has been conducted. In spite of the fact that the tube-well room in question was in the occupation and control of PW Gurmej Singh, his role has not been inquired into and, instead, he has been made a witness of the prosecution and then has not been allowed to enter the witness stand so as to keep him away from the rigour of cross examination. As reflected in Exhibit D2, ASP Arun Pal Singh, IPS, on enquiry found that no
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-1689-SB-2002
-19-
occurrence as stated by the Investigating Officer, had taken place and, in fact, the appellant and her husband were falsely implicated in this case by ASI Yograj on the basis of their past conduct and even Gurmej Singh’s son named Sulakhan Singh had made a statement before him that no scooter ever reached the spot of occurrence because there was no way available for reaching there. The findings recorded by ASP Arun Pal Singh have been ignored by the State without giving any valid reason for rejecting the same.
It is hoped and expected that the police authorities shall be well advised to deeply inquire into the matter and cause appropriate proceedings, under Section 58 of the Act and relevant service rules to be initiated against ASI Yograj and all other police officers/officials connected with the investigation of this case.
(MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN) JUDGE
01.05.2014 adhikari
Virendra singh adhikari 2014.05.12 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved possession of contraband and arrested the appellant in compliance with the N&PS Act.
Whether the trial court erred in convicting despite fakes implications and non-compliance of statutory safeguards.
Whether a conviction can stand when independent witnesses and mandatory procedures under the N&PS Act are not complied with.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Baldev SinghReferred¶110
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999(3) RCR(Crl.) 533
Ritesh Chakravarty v. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶111
Ritesh Chakravarty v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006(4) RCR(Crl.) 480
Sheldrake v. Director of Public ProsecutionsReferred¶120
Sheldrake v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (2005) 1 All ER 237
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Rani
State of Punjab
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Parties & counsel
