LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus LEELA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2009] 8 S.C.R. 68 STATE OF PUNJAB v. LEELA (Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2005) APRIL 23, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985: s. 15, 50 and 55 - Conviction by trial court uls 15 - Acquittal by High court for non examination of independent witness and non compliance of provisions - Held: In the instant case, there is no finding that evidence of official 0 witnesses suffers from any infirmity - Section 50 has no application to the facts of the case - Provisions of s.55 are directory - Besides, there is no reason indicated as to how accused was prejudiced by Dy. S. P. putting his seal on seized articles instead of S. H. 0. - Judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored. E The respondent-accused faced trial for commission of the offence punishable uls 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution case was that the police got the information that the F respondent and his companion were habitually selling poppy husk. The police reached the specified place and saw the respondent and his companion sitting on some bags of poppy husk. During the trial the companion of the respondent jumped bail and he was declared a G proclaimed offender. The trial culminated in conviction of the respondent. He was sentenced to 11 years R.1 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,0001-. On appeal, the High Court accepted the pleas of the accused that no independent witness was examined and that there was non- H 68 • - STATE OF PUNJAB v. LEELA 69 _j compliance of s.55 of the Act. Accordingly he was A _., acquitted. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As regards the evidence of official witnesses, the elementary question is whether the B evidence of official witness suffers from any infirmity. In *· the instant case, there is no finding in that regard. Besides, s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has no application as there was no personal search. [Para 13] [73-E-G] c 2. So far as the plea of non-compliance with .. provision of s.55 of the Act is concerned, the said provisions are directory in nature. Besides, in the instant case, seal on the seized article in question was put by the D Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was higher in rank than the SHO and there is no reason indicated as to how the accused has been prejudiced. There is no doubt about the authenticity of the official act and the High Court ought not to have held that there was non- E compliance of the provisions. [Para 13] [73-C-E] 3. In the circumstances, the acquittal of the " respondent is clearly unsustainable. The judg·ment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. [Para 14] [74-A-B] F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2004 of the High G " Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 166-DB of 2002. Ranbir Yadav (Kuldip Singh) for the Appellant. H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. \.. A S. Janani and Deepak Goel for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is B to the judgment of a Division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by learned Special Judge Sh. lnderjit Kaushik, Patiala, for offence punishable under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotic Substances Act, 1985 (in short · NDPS Act'). Allegation against the accused was that he was found to c be in possession of poppy husk weighing a large quantity in seven bags. 2. The prosecution version in a nut shell is as follows: D 3. On February 20, 1999 Sub-Inspector Ajmer Singh (PW.5), along with other police officials, was on patrol duty in police vehicle PB-11A-7849 driven by Sarmukh Singh. The patrol party was present at the bridge on a drain about 20- kms. South of Police Station, Sadar, Patiala. At 7 a.m. secret E information was received by Sub-Inspector Ajmer Singh that Leela and his co-accused Pritam Singh @ Billu (proclaimed offender) were habitually selling poppy husk and in case a raid was conducted they could both the apprehended red handed from near the bridge over the drain in Bhanri. • F 4. The Investigator proceeded to the spot and also informed D.S.P. Kulshinder
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.