Banta Ram vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

This appeal arises out of the following facts :

On 2nd March, 1986, Head Constable Pawan Kumar alongwith Head Constable Jai Parkash and three other constables was on patrol duty on ThanesarLukhi Road, when they met one Jagtar Singh and entered into conversation with him. Soon, thereafter, the accused was seen coming from the opposite side, who on seeing the policy party, tried to retrace his steps. This action of the accused aroused their suspicion and he was apprehended and on his personal search, a gunny bag found to contain 10 kg of poppy husk was recovered. The Head Constable then sent a ruqa Ex. PB to the police station, on its basis, a formal First Information Report Ex. PB/1 was registered. After completion of the necessary investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the accused was challaned for having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called ''the Act''), 1985 and as he pleaded not guilty to the charge, he was brought to trial.

In order to support its case, the prosecution examined Head Constable Jai Parkash as PW1 and Head Constable Pawan Kumar as PW2, whereas Jagtar Singh PW was given up as having been won over by the accused. Various other items of formal evidence were also got proved.

In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW2 Head Constable Pawan Kumar who was the Investigating Officer was duly corroborated by the evidence of Head Constable Jai Parkash PW1 and in that situation the mere fact that Jagtar Singh an independent witness had been given up as won over, did not dislodge the prosecution case; that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of these two witnesses were so trivial that they could be ignored; that the defence story was improbable and having held as above, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for ten years. Hence this appeal at his instance.

I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as also the evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the parties.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 735 : 1994(3) SCC 299 and Mohinder Kumar v. The State of Goa, 1995(2) RCR 599 , that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are mandatory in nature and if an offer under that Section is not given to an accused, his conviction stands vitiated. In Mohinder Kumar''s case (supra), the Supreme Court has also held that an offer under Section 50 of the Act has to be made even in a case where the meeting between the accused and the police party was in the nature of a chance encounter, provided that the suspicions of the police party had been raised by the suspicious conduct of the accused. It has further been held that from the stage when the suspicions of the police party were aroused, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were liable to come into play. In the case before me today, it is the positive prosecution case that it was the suspicious conduct of the accused who attempted to retrace his steps on seeing the police party that had aroused their suspicions and led to his apprehension and the subsequent seizure of poppy husk from him. It is, therefore, apparent that from that stage, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, had to be complied with. Admittedly, this has not been done.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.