Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

SURJIT SINGH ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out

Of the following facts:

1.1 On the 28th of April, 2004 Sub-Inspector Jaspal

Singh P.W.3, alongwith other police officers was on

patrol duty in the area of village Kot Mohammad Khan on

the Kutcha path leading from village Lohgarh when they

noticed the appellant sitting on the roadside of the

canal minor on three gunny bags. A scooter was parked

nearby. The appellant was apprehended on suspicion and

after Sub Inspector Jaspal Singh had disclosed his

identity he inquired from the appellant as to whether

he would like to be searched in the presence of a

Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant stated

that he would be satisfied if the search was conducted

by a Gazetted Officer on which P.W. 5, Bhulla singh

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Moga, was summoned to

the spot. The gunny bags were thereafter searched and

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008

2

each of the bags was found to contain 34.750 kgs of

poppy straw. A sample was drawn from each of the bags

and the samples and bags were sealed. The seized

articles and other related material was deposited in

the Malkhana at 1:00p.m. the same day.

1.2 On the completion of the investigation, the

appellant was brought to trial for an offence

punishable under Section 15C read with Section 25 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985. He pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The

trial court relying on the evidence of P.W. 3 Sub

Inspector Jaspal Singh , PW 4 Sub Inspector Kirpal

Singh who was also a member of the police party, and

P.W. 5 DSP Bhulla Singh, held that the case against the

appellant had been proved beyond doubt and as the

seizure made from him amounted to commercial quantity,

the minimum sentence provided under the Act was imposed

on him. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal

before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High

Court has, on a reconsideration of the evidence,

confirmed the order of the trial judge. Before the

trial court as also before the High Court several pleas

had been taken they being:(1) no independent witness

had been joined at the time of the search and seizure;

(2) that the samples had been sent to the laboratory

for analysis about four days after the seizure and that

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008

3

the report of the CFSL was, therefore, suspect as the

possibility of the tampering with the samples could not

be ruled out; and (3) that the entire incident was the

outcome of the malafides on the part of Sub Inspector

Jaspal Singh against whom the mother of the appellant

had lodged a complaint before senior officers. All the

pleas were discussed by the trial court and the High

Court with a finding against the appellant.

2. Even today, the learned counsel for the

appellant has raised similar pleas. He has pointed out

that no independent witness had been joined at the time

of the incident and that Sub Inspector Jaspal Singh,

P.W. 3, bore animosity against the family of the

appellant as the appellant's mother had lodged a

complaint against him, and as the samples had been sent

late to the laboratory it was clear that their sanctity

had been compromised with the result that the report of

the laboratory was also under suspicion.

3. The learned counsel for the State has, however,

controverted the pleas and urged that categorical

finding had been recorded on all aspects and

interference at this stage was not called for.

4. We have considered the arguments advanced very

carefully. It is true that no independent witness had

been involved and no attempt had been made in that

direction. However, keeping in mind that the seizure

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008

4

had been effected at about 5:30a.m. and was the outcome

of a sudden meeting between the police party and the

appellant, it was difficult to get an independent

witness. In any case, we find that Sub Inspector

Jaspal Singh, PW 3 SI Kirpal Singh, P.W. 7, DSP Bhulla

Singh and several others had also been present at the

time of the incident and all have supported the

seizure that had taken place. Even assuming that SI

Jaspal Singh bore some animosity the possibility of

false implication has been dispelled by the presence of

the other police officers particularly DSP Bhulla

Singh.

5. It is true that the samples appear to have been

sent after a delay of four days and the messenger who

took the samples has not been examined as a prosecution

witness. The fact remains, however, that the seals

found on the samples were intact when the samples had

been received in the laboratory and, more

significantly, whensa the inventory of the samples was

taken in the Malkhana long after, the seals were found

to be intact at that stage as well. We must take it,

therefore, that the report of the Laboratory was also

accurate and reflected the true state of affairs as to

the seizure.

6. We, accordingly, find no merit in the appeal

which stands dismissed.

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008

5

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JANUARY 12, 2011.