LexKULDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 297 KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: A B s. 42 - Non-collection of samples of contraband at initial c stage of seizure - Seizure of 150 kg poppy husk concealed in four bags - Contraband sealed and taken to Police Station - S. H. 0. at the Police Station broke open the seals, mixed the contraband, took samples and again sealed the bags - Conviction of accused - HELD: Non-collection of samples at 0 the initial stage of seizure was a defect, which could not have been cured in the manner in which it was done by opening the bags which had been sealed by PW-2 and mixing the contents thereof - The seizure and collection of samples was not in accordance with the provisions of s.42 of the Act and the entire procedure stood vitiated as a result - Conviction E and sentence set aside - Interpretation of Statute. s. 42 - Information regarding contraband to be recorded and sent to superior officer - On receipt of secret information, Police Officer on patrol duty seized the contraband - F Information recorded thereafter and sent to superior officer - HELD: There was substantial compliance of the provision. Interpretation of Statutes: Strict construction - HELD: Provisions of NDPS Act have G to be construed strictly. Kamai/ Singh vs. State of Haryana 2009 (11) SCR 470 = 2009 (8) sec 539 - referred to. 297 H A B 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. Case Law Reference: 2009 (11) SCR 470 referred to para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 22.7.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1997. Rajesh Sharma, Yogesh Dahiya, Shalu and Sahil Bali for C the Appellant. D Jayant K. Sud, Atul Shai, Aman Raj Gandari and Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER Leave granted. E This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd July 2008, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Crl. Appeal No. 628-SB of 1997, dismissing the appeal of the appellant which had been filed by the appellant against his conviction by the learned, Special Judge, Sangrur, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic F Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3, Mr. Malkiat Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Bhawanigarh, was said to have been on patrol duty when a secre information was received by him that the appellant was dealing with Poppy Husk from his residence. On G receipt of the said information the said Malkiat Singh, along with Head Constable Gurmail Singh, Constable Gamdoor Singh, Head Constable, Jagga Ram, PHG Rajinder Singh and SPO Hari Singh, went to the house of the appellant and upon questioning him they came to learn that he had concealed H KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 299 certain amount of contraband. Based on the said part of the A information which was admissible under Section 27 of, the Evidence Act, a recovery was made of four bags of Poppy Husk. At the time of seizure of the said contraband, no samples were taken by P.W.3. The same was seized by Mr. Malkiat Singh, who also sealed the same with his seal, and thereafter, the four B . bags were taken to the Police Station where the Station House Officer, Gurmail Singh, broke open the seals and mixed the contents of the four bags together, and took the samples therefrom and resealed the bags with his seal. At that point of time, the poppy Husk was weighed and found to be 150 c kilograms of Poppy Husk in all. A charge was framed against the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, and, ultimately, he was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two and 0 a half years. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the appellant moved the High Court, which agreed with the findings of the Trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said order of Jiismissal that the instant Special Leave petition was E filed, and this appeal arises therefrom. Mr. Sahil Bali, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that in view of what has been stated hereinabove by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.