Sita Ram vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the accusedappellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1988 dated 4.4.1989.

The accusedappellant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). According to the case of the prosecution the accused was found in possession of 245 kgs of poppy husk which was recovered from him in pursuance of a disclosure statement said to have been made by the accused to Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh. Further, according to the prosecution, the poppy husk contained in seven bags was concealed underneath the bushes near the tail of Landa Sua and the accused got it recovered on the basis of his disclosure statement. After recovery, a sample of 250 Gms. was taken from each bag and the same were sealed. The bags containing remaining poppy husk after taking samples were also sealed. On the basis of the ruqa a case was registered against the accused in F.I.R. No. 108 dated 13.8.1988 and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused.

After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined who witnesses and marked documents. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

PW1 who is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police deposed that he alongwith PW2 was present in Chotian Crossing where Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh received a secret information against the accused and on the basis of that information, he sent a ruqa to the Police Station for the registration of the case. Thereafter, they left for Landa Sua in the area of Chotian. When they reached the bridge of the canal minor of Landa Sua, the accused was found present and on seeing the police party he tried to slip away. On the basis of suspicion, he was interrogated by the Sub Inspector and he made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed 7 bags of poppy husk underneath the bushes and on the basis of the said statement, the accused got recovered the poppy husk. PW2 also deposed to the same effect. But the prosecution did not examine any other witness in regard to recovery. The disclosure statement as such is not admissible to prove the guilt of the accused. It only shows that some poppy husk was recovered from the place near the minor canal in the vicinity of Landa Sua but no independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery. There is also no evidence that the accused kept the contraband at the place of recovery. Under Section 27 of the Act, the recovery of poppy husk can only be proved, but not the fact that the accused kept the same at the place from where it has been recovered. As already observed, except the evidence of PW1 and PW2, no independent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that the accused concealed the contraband underneath the bushes in the area of Landa Sua. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 15 of the Act.

On a consideration of the material on record, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled to be acquitted as there is no evidence to show that the accused was responsible for keeping the poppy husk at the place from where it was recovered.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accusedappellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.