STATE OF PUNJAB versus MALKIAT SINGH

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 21-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 63 
r 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
V. 
MALKIAT SINGH 
Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2005 
APRIL 21, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
,Ir" 
GANGULY, JJ] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- s. 15 - Contraband articles recovered from room belonging c 
to 'P' and allegedly leased out to respondent - Trial Court 
convicted respondent - High Court acquitted him on grounds 
that the alleged lease deed was not brought on record; that 'P' 
was not prosecuted and that there was nothing to show that 
; 
respondent was having possession over the room in question · 
- On appeal, held: No reason was indicated as to why 'P' was D 
not examined and why during investigation, copy of the lease 
deed, showing the room to have been leased out to 
respondent, was not brought on record - No evidence was 
adduced to show possession of the room by respondent -
Investigation was done in a shoddy manner - Judgment of E 
the High Court did not suffer from any infirmity which warranted 
intetference. 
" 
Contraband articles were recovered from a room 
belonging to one 'P' and allegedly leased out to the 
F 
respondent. The trial court convicted the respondent 
under s.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. The High Court acquitted the 
respondent on grounds that the alleged lease deed was 
not brought on record; that even though the contraband 
articles were recovered from the room belonging to 'P', G 
" 
he was not prosecuted and that there was nothing to 
show that the respondent was having possession over 
the room in question. Hence the present appeal. 
63 
H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [2009] 7 S.C.R. 
" 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:. There was no reason indicated as to why 'P' 
was not examined and why during investigation, copy of 
the lease deed, showing the room to have been leased 
B 
out to the respondent-accused, was not brought on 
record. No evidence was adduced to show possession 
of the room by respondent who was admittedly not the 
owner of the room. In addition, no question regarding the 
... 
possession of the room in question was put which added 
to vulnerability of the prosecution version. Looking from 
c any angle, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer 
from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Paras 5, 6] 
[65-G; 66-A; 66-B] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 190 of 2005 
D 
From the Judgement and Order dated 20.01.2004 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 
in Criminal Appeal No. 20-DB of 2003. 
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra, H.S. Sandhu, 
E Sanjay Katyal, for the Appellant. 
J.L. Gupta, Nidhsh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani, with them 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
' 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of Punjab and Haryana High court directing acquittal of 
the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence 
G punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'NDPS Act'). 
The respondent was sentenced to undergo twelve years rigorous 
imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees one lakh with default 
stipulation by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. 
H 
In appeal the High Court found that there were several 
STATE OF PUNJAB V. MALKIAT SINGH 
65 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT] 
factors which justified the acquittal of the respondent. The first 
A 
was that the recovery was from a room near a tube well 
belonging to one Pritam Singh. Though the prosecution claimed 
that the room was under the control of the respondent, no 
evidence was led in that regard. The stand of the prosecution 
was that the room in question was leased out to the present B 
respondent for the purpose of storing the contraband articles. 
r-· 
That lease deed if any was even not brought on record. If the 
narcotics have been recovered from room belonging to Pritam 
Sing h's he was not prosecuted. There was nothing to show that 
the accused was having possession over the room in question. c 
Question in that regard was put to him. With theses conclusions 
the High Court directed acquittal. 
The High Court was of the view that in case of such serious 
nature, the investigating agency was not very serious in 
conducting the investigation. It noted with concern that drug D 
peddlers who are corroding the health of the nation are allowed 
to go scot free because of

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