Allowed

Swaranjit Singh Alias Raja v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2015CRA-S/69/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an appeal against conviction under the NDPS Act for possession of opium. The court acquitted the appellant due to failure to produce case property, inconsistencies in signatures on recovery documents, procedural irregularities, and unexplained contradictions in witness accounts.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of offences under Section 18 of the NDPS Act.

Swaranjit Singh Alias Raja Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

CRA-S-69-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶3

��

¶4

CRA�S�69�SB of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:22.7.2015.

¶5

Swaranjit Singh alias Raja

'.Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

'.Respondent

�� 

Argued by: Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. B.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.

¶13

��

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, whereby appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/� under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Act for the short), in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶15

The case of the prosecution was that on 1.10.1999, a police party headed by ASI Mohinder Singh during nakabandi spotted the appellant and on suspicion apprehended him. He desired that he be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and, therefore, Gurdev Singh, DSP, Muktsar was called. On search of the appellant, 5 kilograms of opium, wrapped in a glazed paper, was recovered. 20 grams was separated as sample. Both the samples and the remaining contraband were taken into possession. After getting the report of the chemical examiner and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The petitioner was tried

¶16

ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2015.07.23 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

¶18

CRA-S-69-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶19

for the offence under Section 18 of the Act and was convicted and sentenced as above.

¶20

The conviction was challenged on various grounds. Counsel for the appellant contended that there were major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and that the independent witness Resham Singh, who was allegedly present with the police party, was not examined and was given up as won over by the appellant. It was argued that according to PW5, a wireless message had been sent for calling the DSP, who also gave certain details relating to that, whereas PW6 said that he had directly spoken to DSP and had called him to the spot. The former (PW5) said that the appellant was arrested at 4.00 pm whereas other witness stated that he was arrested at 12.30 pm. One of the witnesses stated that contraband was put in plastic box whereas the other witness stated that a tin box was used which was already with the Investigating Officer. The trial Court ignored the contradictions stating that in view of the passage of time and other factors, some allowance could be given to the witnesses for loss of memory.

¶21

It was then contended on behalf of the appellant that the sample was sent after one month and the seal was also not handed over to the independent witness. DSP stated that he retained his own seal while the seal of the Investigating Officer was handed over to Nirbhai Singh, Head Constable. It was also pointed out that the police party travelled in a private vehicle and reason was not explained. If the police party was on official duty, how they were travelling in a private vehicle, is not comprehensible.

¶22

The signatures of the appellant on the documents allegedly prepared at the spot are different on the memos. Ex.PD is the memo of consent and the signatures of the appellant on that do not tally with the

¶23

ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2015.07.23 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

¶25

CRA-S-69-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶26

signatures on Ex.PF and PH. Rather the signatures on Ex.PH i.e. memo of dissent, are entirely different. In the other two memos, the word Swaran’ is written in Gurmukhi by using all the four letters i.e. Sa’, va’, ra’, n’ while in Ex.PH the word Swaran’ is written as Siwaran i.e. bearing a matra’ with the letter sa’ and bearing a tippi’ which is used in Gurmukhi, above the letter va’. Even the word `Singh’ is written in Gurmukhi in a different manner. The signatures put as Swaranjeet Singh on all the three papers were surely not of the same person. The signatures on Ex.P3 purporting to be of the appellant are yet again totally different.

¶27

The damaging part of the case of the prosecution is that the case property never saw the face of the court. Without production of the case property i.e. 4.98 kilograms of opium in part, it cannot be said that such huge quantity was recovered from the appellant. Only sample of 20 grams of the contraband was sent for analysis whereas remaining contraband was not produced in court at all. It was, thus, not proved that 5 kilograms of opium was recovered from the appellant as alleged. The recovery would also become doubtful from the fact that PW5 stated that one constable had brought the weights, which were of the denominations of 5 kilograms and 20 grams. It is not understandable as to how the person who fetched the weights was sure about the quantity of sample which would be separated and the quantity of total contraband. Why he did not bring weights of other denominations was not explained. Also the case of the prosecution was that 20 grams had first been separated as a sample and then the remaining contraband was weighed. How 4.98 kilograms of opium could be weighed with only single weight of 5 kilograms is also not understandable.

¶28

ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2015.07.23 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶29

¶30

CRA-S-69-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶31

The DSP submitted that he remained at the spot from 12.30 pm to 3.15 pm whereas according to PW5 Nirbhai Singh, the appellant was arrested at 4.00 pm and then he said that statement of DSP was recorded at 3.15 pm.

¶32

From the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that no paper work, if any, was done at the spot. The appellant did not sign the memos as alleged because the signatures do not tally and the recovery was not proved because the case property was never produced in court.

¶33

The independent witness Resham Singh was not examined. The prosecution did not get absolved of its liability by giving him up as won over. The witness should have been put in the stands. Or it was that the prosecution was apprehensive that he could let the cat out of the bag and so kept him away.

¶34

As a sequel to the discussion made above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted.

¶35

�� 

¶36

22.7.2015 ishwar

¶37

ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2015.07.23 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Swaranjit Singh Alias Raja v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaranjit Singh Alias Raja v. State of Punjab

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

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs Rakesh Kkumar

Bhim Sen Bansal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Raghbir Singh Sodhi Vs Jit Singh

Rajinder Kumar Rana Vs Vishal

Gurjit Singh Vs Mehar Singh and Ors.

Gurjit Singh Vs Mehar Singh and Ors.