LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus SURJIT SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 306 A ' S-TATE OF PUNJAB ,,;i v. SURJIT SINGH & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2005 B APRIL 22, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - S. 15 - Prosecution under - Case based on evidence of c offic;ial witnesses -- Independent witness to recovery and seizure of contraband, not examined - Reason for non-examination stated that he was won over - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court on the ground that conviction on the basis of official witnesses not correct - Independent- witness D .- even if won over, should have been examined - On appeal, held: Accused liable to be convicted - Evidence of official ..... witnesses does not suffer from any infirmity CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E No. 646 of 2005 From the Judgement and Order dated 22.08.2003 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 80-SB of 2002 (O&M). F Seeraj Bagga (for Kuldip Singh), for the Appellant. Ex-parte, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. G. 1. In this appeal challenge to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court directing ;,...._ acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the H 306 STATE OF PUNJAB V SURJIT SINGH & ANR. 307 [DR. ARIJIT PA'SAYAT, J] _, I'-· Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, A 'the Act')'. Each of the respondents was sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-with default stipulation. 2. Learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur had found them B guilty. Prosecution version as unfolded during the trial was as ·follows. 3. Dn 11.7.2000, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar along with other police officials was on patrol duty in the area of village Nagra. Karnail Singh independent witness met them c there and he was joined in the police party. Thereafter, they proceeded towards VillageAkberpura. When they reached near the bridge of minor canal, then the respondents were seen sitting on the gunny bags. On seeing the police party, they succeeded in running away. However, they were identified by Kashmir D -· Singh, Head Constable and Baljit Singh, Head Constable. 4. Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar sent wireless message to Raj Bachan Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur to reach at the spot and under his directions Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar conducted search of the E bags. On search, the bags were found to contain poppy husk. ' The bags were four in number. Two samples of 250grams each ---- of poppy husk were taken from each 0fthe bags. The remainder in each biig was found to be 29.500 kilograms. The samples and the remaining poppy husk in the four bags were separately F sealed with the seal of 'VK' and seal after use was handed over to Karnail Singh. They were taken into possession vide memo / Ex.PA attested by the witnesses. I 5. Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar sent ruqa Ex.PE, to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of G ~ which formal first information report Ex.PA/1 was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Surjit Sfngh. He prepared rough site ~ plan, Ex.PF, with correct marginal notes. On return; he produced the case property and witnesses before the Station House Officer Amit Joshi, who after verifying the facts, put his own seal H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A bearing impression "AJ", and then on his clarifications, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar deposited the case property with Mahar Head Constable Jaswinder Singh. 6. Parma, respondent, was arrested on 17.4.2000 while respondent Surjit Singh was arrested on 27.7.2000. After receipt 8 of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PH, the challan was put up in the court. 7. As accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 8. In order to prove the allegations, prosecution examined C seven witnesses. Trial Court found accused guilty and convicted them. 9. The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, solely on the ground that 0 only official witnesses were examined and no independent witness was examined. Prosecution during trial made a statement before the Court that Karnail Singh was not being e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.