State of Punjab vs Jeet Singh

S.S. Rathor, J.—On 23.8.1986, Inspector Harinderjit Singh while heading a police party, apprehended the accused and allegedly recovered 30 kgs. of poppy husk from his possession. Later on, the accused made a disclosure statement during interrogation that he had kept concealed 100 bags of poppy husk in the cattle room of the house of Sarwan Singh which he had purchased from him. After investigation of the case and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the accused was challaned for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and charge against him for the said offence was framed by the trial court vide order dated 4.4.1987 to which he pleaded not guilty. To achieve success, the prosecution examined two official witnesses namely PW1 ASI Ram Kumar and SHO Harinderjit Singh (PW 2). Report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PX/2 and Ext. PX/3 alongwith affidavits of formal witnesses Ext. PX and Ex. PX/1 were also tendered in evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded false implication and innocence.

The trial Court did not feel safe to base conviction on the basis of sole statements of official witnesses namely PW 1 ASI Ram Kumar and SHO Harinderjit Singh PW 2 ) particularly when no convincing evidence has been placed on record to show that as to why Bant Singh, the only independent witness was not examined during trial.

The trial court further observed that provisions of the Act call for deterrent punishment and willful default on the part of the Investigating Officer to examine independent witnesses to seek corroboration of the prosecution version based on the statements of official witnesses, renders the prosecution story highly doubtful. In support of this observation, the trial Court placed reliance upon Swarna v. State, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 117

1987(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 524.

Even if this aspect of the matter is ignored, it is not safe to convict the accused in view of the noncompliance of statutory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The Investigating Officer failed to ask the accused that if he was willing to be produced before a gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for effecting search on his person. The provisions of Section 50 have been opined to be of mandatory nature by this court in a Division Bench judgement reported as Amrit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports 525 . As such non compliance of the said provisions would certainly entitle to an order of acquittal.

5.The well reasoned judgement of the trial court which is based upon just appreciation of evidence on record and correct interpretation of law, does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence the State appeal is ordered to be dismissed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.