Criminal Appeal No. 519-DBA of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 519-DBA of 1999 Date of decision : 14.5.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/accused. However, in view of the fact that leave to appeal in this case had been granted by a Coordinate Bench as early as on 27.9.2000, we opted to examine the record. The prosecution presentation ( in case FIR No. 185 dated 30.12.1994 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station, Sunam) was invalidated by the learned Trial Judge on various counts, inter-alia, that no effort was made at all to join an independent witness in the raiding party inspite of the proven availablity thereof and also because of certain discrepancies as between the statement of SI Balwinder Singh PW-1 and PW-2 HC Sukhnaib Singh with regard to place where the vehicle by, means whereof the police party reached the spot, were parked before conducting the raid. It was also noticed that PW-1 Balwinder was silent about the weights and scale; while PW-2 Sukhnaib Singh averred that small size weights and small scales were with the SI Balwinder Singh and other weights etc. were Criminal Appeal No. 519-DBA of 1999 -2- brought by Constable Sukhdev Singh, who was not examined at the trial. The Trial Court also noticed that writing Ex. PC did not make a mention of the fact that consent statement of the respondents/accused had been recorded. The lacunae noticed by the learned Trial Court have relevant bearing on the validity of the prosecution presentation. It requires pointed notice that law under the N.D.P.S. Act being fairly rigorous, equally onerous is the responsibility on the prosecution to prove the plea against the culprit with clinching evidence. We concur with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. We have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 14, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE