Crl. Appeal No. 343-SB of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 343-SB of 1995 Date of Decision : 10.01.2008 Hardev Singh … Appellant Versus State of Punjab. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. JUDGEMENT: The present appeal, preferred by Hardev Singh son of Jangir Singh, against his conviction for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, deserves to succeed for the reasons indicated hereunder:- In spite of the fact that an independent witness (namely Raja Ram) had been associated with the police party, the seal after use was handed over to DSP-PW, for inexplicable reasons. The fact that Raja Ram ditched the prosecution at the trial is altogether irrelevant in the context. The Investigating Officer was duty bound to ensure that the contents of the seized sample were not tampered with till examination by the chemical examiner. That could best be ensured by ensuring the entrustment of the Crl. Appeal No. 343-SB of 1995 2 seal to an independent witness which was not done in the present case. The possibility, thus, of the case property having been tampered with cannot be ruled out. As per the own presentation of the prosecution, the impugned recovery in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, had been effected from a site by the canal bank which is, obviously, a public place frequented by a number of passers-by. As per the allegations, the case property had been concealed in the elephant grass. There was no evidence to the effect that anyone other than the appellant could not have gained knowledge of the availability of the poppy husk over there or that the concealment had been done in such a manner that it is only the appellant who would have had obtained exclusive knowledge thereof. It is also on record that the ground of arrest had not been disclosed to the appellant. The relevant provisions of the Act, though directory in nature, require compliance. The basic idea is that the offender should be made aware of the offence committed by him and the matter gets notified to the higher authority to ensure a fair trial to the offender. The non-compliance thereof, obviously, enures for the benefit of the appellant. There is complete variation in evidence about the number of seals which had been put on the sample. PW1-Hardial Singh would want the Court to believe that each sample had three seals each. The FSL report is to the effect that the sample bore only one seal each on the two sample parcels. I am not persuaded to accept the finding by the learned Trial Judge that a contradiction on such like point is relegated to the background just because the witnesses are being examined after a period of two years. By the very nature of things, the aspect of intactness of samples has a very Crl. Appeal No. 343-SB of 1995 3 relevant bearing on the success of a case of this category. If there is a dereliction in the manner of proof, the prosecution cannot be heard to deny benefit thereof to the offender. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction is set aside and so also is the order on the point of sentence. The appellant shall stand discharged of the bonds. January 10, 2008 ( S.D. ANAND ) vkd JUDGE Note : Whether referred to Reporter : Yes/No