Gurtej Singh vs State of Haryana

J.B. Garg, J.

Gurtej Singh and Pargat Singh have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 7.5.1992 and sentenced to RI for a period of 10 years and also required to pay a fine of Rs. 100,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year each under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted.

Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that on 5.1.1990 as a consequence of the secret information received, Shri Hukam Chand Sub Inspector, SHO of Police Station Loharu, organised a Nakabandi on the sales tax barrier on the road leading to Surajgarh. Besides the aforesaid Station House Officer, the others who were present included Braham Parkash Head Constable, Shri Raghvender Singh Inspector of Sales Tax, Head Constable Annar Singh and a few others. At about 5.00 a.m. a tractor and a trolley bearing No. HYR 3670 was coming from Suraj Garh Road and it was being driven by Gurtej Singh accused. It contained 28 bags which were found to contain poppy straw and Pargat Singh was sitting upon these bags. The accused were stopped and a sample weighing 200 grams was separated from each of the bags. These bags Exs. P.1 to P28 were taken into possession by means of recovery memo Ex. PB. The report of Chemical Examiner Madhuban is Ex. PJ. The tractor as well as the troller were also taken into possession.

PW2 Raghvender Singh and PW3 Hukam Chand Sub Inspector have given a consistent account that the two accused were apprehended in the early morning of 5.1.1990 when they were coming in a tractor trolley from Rajasthan to Haryana with bags of poppy straw. They have also deposed that the accused were given an offer that they may be taken before a gazetted officer before the search could be commenced but the accused proposed that the search may be conducted there and then.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to Amrit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) RCR 525 and has argued that the search was not conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer. This contention as such is not acceptable in the circumstances of the case now in hand. Here, on receipt of a special report the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Loharu, PW5, arrived at the place of the recovery at about 7.00 a.m. Even at that time the other witnesses such as Raghvender Singh and Dalip Singh were still present. The was specifically deposed that he placed his own seals on 28 bags and 28 sample packets.

PW3 Shri Hukam Chand, SHO, who was the investigating Officer of this case, has deposed that through a constable he had sent information to Shri Dharam Pal Singh, DSP and he arrived at the spot. This was sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Since Shri Hukam Chand himself was Station House Officer of Police Station Loharu he was competent to take charge of the articles seized at the time of the recovery and compliance of Section 55 of the Act was also fulfilled as dealt in Nathu Ram v. State, 1990 Cri. L.J. 806 referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General Haryana.

The mere fact that the sole independent witness Dalip Singh has not supported the factum of recovery does not weaken the case of the prosecution.

The accused belong to District Sangroor. The occurrence took place in District Bhiwani in Haryana. There was absolutely no reason for the police officials to implicate these two accused falsely in this case where poppy straw consisting of as many as 28 bags was recovered. The plea taken in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused were dealers in cattle and the police wanted to utilise their vehicle for carrying some goods to the police station land on their refusal to oblige the police they were falsely implicated, is not plausible.

In view of the evidence and reasons discussed above, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.