HARDIP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 20-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 12 S.C.R. 311 
•~ 1 
HARDIP SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2007) ' 
AUGUST 20, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
I( 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
-., 
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- s. 18 - Recovery of 7 kgs opium from the possession of c 
accused - Defense case that Investigating Officer nourishing 
personal grudge against accused, thus accused falsely im-
p/icated in a criminal case - Conviction and sentence of 10 
years RI by courts below - On appeal, held: Defense version 
is a story of whims and caprices of accused, thus, is not trust-
D 
worthy and is rejected - There was no question of bias - In-
vestigating Officer made recoveries of opium and seized the 
same and thus, was rightly made the Investigating Officer in 
the case - Defense case was sought to be made out only dur-
ing the trial by which time investigation was complete - Sea/ E 
in the sample were not tampered with at any stage - Delay of 
about 40 days in sending the samples did not cause preju-
dice to accused .:... A/so, submission that s. 55 was violated is 
without merit- More.so, accused failed to show any prejudice 
caused to him for not putting seal in the sample by officer-in-
charge of police station. 
F 
.. tit 
According to the prosecution case, 7 kgs of opium 
was recovered from the possession of the appellant-ac-
cused. The Inspector JS-PW-5, SI and other police offi-
cials intercepted a vehicle in which the appellant was trav-
G 
elling. MS and SSM Deputy Superintendent of Police-PW 
• 
4 reached the place of occurrence. The consent memos 
were prepared. Appellant signed it and the witnesses as 
also PW 4 attested the same. On instruction of DSP-PW 
311 
H 
) .
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R 
A 4, the Inspector-PW 5 conducted the search of the appel-
'( -·· 
lant. One bag containing 7 kgs of opium was found in the 
right hand of the appellant. Two separate parcels were 
prepared and sealed with the seals bearing inscription of 
SSM and JS of DSP-PW 4 and lnspector:.Js. In one parcel 
B 250 gms of opium was taken as a sample. The sealed 
parcels were taken into possessiotl~nd~ttested by the 
witnesses. The driver of the truck was also found in pos-
.. 
session of 3 kgs of opium. FIR was lodged. Appellant, 
....
driver and the case property was produced before the ' 
I-
c Inspector-BS, SHO, Police Station, Ajnala who verified the 
Investigation., The samples were sent for examination~ The 
contents of the sample parcels were found to be of opium. 
t
Witnesses were exaJ11ined. Trial court convicted the ap-
peilant and. the driy~r u/ 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and 
I 
) 
D Psychotrgpic Substafl'ces Act, 1985 and imposed rigor-
ous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs one lakh. 
High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, how-
.4 
ever, acquitted the driver. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the allegations that the In-
" 
vestigating Officer. JS-PW'S was nourishing a grudge 
against th~apperiant over the vehicular accident, which 
; 
was ultimately compromised by a written apology, a pe-
l>c 
F 
rusal of the document of apology, shows that it carries 
the signatures of various persons including GS-OW 3 and 
HS-OW 5 but the signature of JS-PW 5, the investigating " 
.,. 
~ 
officer of the case was not appearing in the said docu-
>-
ment. PW 5 was also examined and cross examined at 
length but nbt a single question was put to him about the 
G execution of the document of apology. No suggestion 
was given to him that the said document was executed in • 
<
his presence and that he was also a consenting party to 
the said document of apology. Therefore, the trial court 
as also the High Court were justified in raising doubt 
H about the genuineness of the said defense case. A docu-
HARDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
313 
...... J 
ment can always be created falsely by obtaining signatures 
~ 
A 
of few persons but the said doc;ument when produced in 
evidence must be able to stand the test of genuineness. The 
said document is a doubt~ul .and the genuin.eness of the 
-f 
same could not be. proved b9 the appellant since .he had 
" 
failed to bring it to the notice of PW 5, during his cross ex-
B 
A 
amination, thP fact that the same was executed in his pres-
.. 
ence and with his consent. [Para 10] [319-G,H, 320-A-D] 
1.2 So far as the complaints by the appellant on ac-
count of the personal grudge against t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.