-1- Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005. Date of Decision: May 11, 2010. Major Singh @ Bhatti ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005. Jagtar Singh @ Tara ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State-respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1218 -2- Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005 -SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219 -SB of 2005 as they arise out of the same First Information Report. Major Singh @ Bhatti and Jagtar Singh @ Tara (appellants) have filed these appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.205 and the sentence order dated 30.5.2005 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, whereby they were convicted under Section 15 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay Rs.1 lac as fine each, in default, whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 23.02.2003, Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjit Singh along with other police officials, was present in the revenue limits of village Chauke in a government vehicle in connection with 'nakabandi'. Kapoor Singh, an independent witness came there and was joined in the police party. At about 11 A.M, a jeep bearing registration No. UP-10-B- 1403 was seen coming from the side of village Peerkot. It was being driven by accused-appellant Major Singh @ Bhatti. Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjit Singh got the Jeep stopped. Accused- appellant Jagtar Singh @ Tara was seen sitting on the rear seat of the driver. Two gunny bags were lying in the jeep. Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjit Singh told the accused-appellants that search of the gunny bags lying in the jeep was to be conducted. Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjit Singh apprised the accused-appellants of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted -3- Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005 officer. The accused-appellants opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Joint consent memo of the accused was recorded in this regard. Accordingly, presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagmohan Singh was secured at the spot. Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagmohan Singh, on reaching the spot, disclosed his identity to the accused-appellants. On the direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagmohan Singh, search of the gunny bags contained in the Jeep was conducted. Poppy husk was found in both the bags. Two Samples of 250 grams were separated from each bag containing poppy husk. The residue poppy husk in each bag, on weighment, was found to be 34 Kgs and 500 Gms. The samples and the bulk poppy husk in two bags were separately sealed and taken into possession by the police. The Jeep in question was also taken into possession. On personal search of accused-appellant Jagtar Singh, Rs.225/- were recovered whereas Rs.75 were recovered from the personal search of accused-appellant Major Singh. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal F.I.R was registered against the accused-appellants. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. The accused were formally arrested. Statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'). After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused-appellants was put in Court. Charge was framed against the accused-appellants for -4- Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005 the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The accused- appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjit Singh (P.W.1), Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagmohan Singh (P.W.2), Sub Inspector Devinder Kumar (P.W.3), Head Constable Balraj Singh (P.W.4) and Kuldeep Singh Chahal, Notary Publice Mansa (P.W.5). In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code, accused-appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. It was stated by the accused-appellants that nothing was recovered from them and that they had no relationship with each other. In defence, the accused-appellants examined Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjant Singh (D.W.1). The Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that two bags, each containing 35 Kgs of poppy husk, were recovered from them. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned above. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State-respondent and have gone through the records of the case. In this case, documents (Exhibits P.A to P.G), which were prepared at the spot and at the same time, are on different papers and with different ink. Signatures of the police -5- Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005 officials and of the independent witness, namely, Kapoor Singh on some of the documents are with the same ink/pen with which these documents have been prepared but the signatures of Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagmohan Singh are with different ink/pen. These facts show, firstly that Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagmohan Singh was not present at the spot and, secondly, that the aforesaid documents had not been prepared at the spot. The manner in which the proceedings against the accused were conducted by the police at the spot casts a serious doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution case entitling the accused-appellant to acquittal. Besides, Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjit Singh, Investigating Officer (P.W.1), as deposed by him, had, on return to the Police Station, produced both the accused and the case property before Sub Inspector Devinder Kumar. However, Assistant Sub Inspector Gurjant Singh (D.W.1), who deposed from the contents of Register No.19 maintained in the Police Station, stated that “no date exists under signatures of Sub Inspector Devinder Kumar in entry No.959 qua deposit of case property of this case in register No.19.” It also creates doubt that the prosecution version as brought forward by its witnesses is not believable. In view of the above and without dilating any further on the issue, I am of the considered opinion that the charge under Section 15 of the Act against the appellants is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Resultantly, I accept these appeals and acquit the appellants of the charge framed against them by -6- Criminal Appeal No.1218-SB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1219-SB of 2005 giving them the benefit of doubt by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentencer order. May 11, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE