State Of Punjab vs Malkiat Singh

JUD GMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of

Punjab and Haryana High court directing acquittal of the respondent who

faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the `NDPS

Act'). The respondent was sentenced to undergo twelve years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

In appeal the High Court found that there were several factors which

justified the acquittal of the respondent. The first was that the recovery was

from a room near a tube well belonging to one Pritam Singh. Though the

prosecution claimed that the room was under the control of the respondent,

no evidence was led in that regard. The stand of the prosecution

-2-

was that the room in question was leased out to the present respondent for

the purpose of storing the contraband articles. That lease deed if any was even not brought on record. If the narcotics have been recovered from room

belonging to Pritam Singh's he was not prosecuted. There was nothing to

show that the accused was having possession over the room in question.

Question in that regard was put to him. With theses conclusions the High

Court directed acquittal.

The High Court was of the view that in case of such serious nature,

the investigating agency was not very serious in conducting the investigation.

It noted with concern that drug peddlers who are corroding the health of the

nation are allowed to go scot free because of the ineffective investigation and

for not collecting evidence to secure their conviction.

Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the presence

of the respondent near the spot of occurrence had been established and

therefore it can be safely said that he was connected with the storage of the

contraband articles. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted -3-

that even no question was put to the accused in his examination under ec.313

of the Code whether he was in possession or control of the room from where

the contraband articles were recovered.

We find that the High court has noted with concern the shoddy

investigation which was done. There was no reason indicated as to why

Pritam Singh was not examined and why during investigation copy of the

lease deed, showing the room to have been leased out to the respondent-

accused, was obtained from Pritam Singh, if that was there. There is no

reason as to why the same was not brought on record. Additionally, no evidence was adduced to show the possession of the room by respondent

who was admittedly not the owner of the room. In addition, as is rightly

contended by learned counsel for the respondent, no question regarding the

possession of the room in question was put which added to the vulnerability

to the prosecution version.

Looking from any angle, the Judgment of the High Court does not

suffer from any infirmity to warrant interferene.

Above being the position, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

................ .J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 21, 2009.