Case: Natha Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Haryana

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No. 76/2007 whereby the High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against them under Section 15(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act). 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 09.01.2003, when SI Khayali Ram (PW 8) and other police officials were present at bus-stand of village Hamzapur in connection with patrolling and detection of crime, a confidential informant revealed that the appellants Natha Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Baljeet Singh and Deedar Singh had brought contraband poppy husk in truck No. HR-57-1018 from Rajasthan which is parked in the courtyard of Deedar Singh and they were waiting for a chance to unload the same in the bunker constructed in the cattle Kotha of Deedar Singh. SI Khayali Ram (PW 8) then informed the same to DSP through V.T. message and when DSP arrived at the busstand, they conducted a raid and apprehended Natha Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Baljeet Singh from the spot and 30 bags of poppy husk was recovered. On the directions of the DSP, those bags were checked by SI Khayali Ram, the contraband poppy husk was sampled and the reminder was weighed recording the content in each bag as 39 Kilograms and 800 grams and took them into police possession. After completion of the formalities, the accused were arrested. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. After an elaborate consideration, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellants were found to be in possession of the contraband poppy husk in `commercial quantity, as described under Section 15(c) of the Act and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years (12 years) and to pay fine of One Lakh Rupees each and in case of default of payment of fine, they would be liable to further suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants approached the High Court in CRLA No. 76/2007 and the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the trial court thereby giving rise to the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana at length. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has mainly contended that in this case Section 42 of the Act was not complied with, there was delay in sending the sample, secret information allegedly received was not reduced in writing, conscious possession was not established and the appellant was falsely implicated in this case because of his earlier civil litigation with one Darshan Singh. 7. We find from the material that immediately on receipt of the secret information, S.I. (PW 8) has sent V.T message to the DSP and the raid was conducted after DSP arrived at the bus-stand. Compliance of Section 42 of the Act has to be viewed pragmatically and the recovery was effected on 9th January, 2003 in presence of Gazetted Officer, which satisfies the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. Considering the facts on record, we are of the view that none of the contention was established by the appellants which in any way would affect their conviction. Thus, after taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. We find from the material that immediately on receipt of the secret information, S.I. (PW 8) has sent V.T message to the DSP and the raid was conducted after DSP arrived at theCompliance of Section 42 of the Act has to be viewed pragmatically and the recovery was effected on 9th January, 2003 in presence of Gazetted Officer, which satisfies the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. Considering the facts on record, we are of the view that none of the contention was established by the appellants which in any way would affect their conviction. Thus, after taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with thejudgment of the High Court.