Pargat Singh v. State of Pb

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. The  present  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  judgment  of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted in FIR No.18, dated

10.04.1994, registered at Police Station Sohana, under Sections 15 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of default to pay fine, he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2.    The brief facts of the case are that on 10.4.1994, Police Party headed by S.I. Didar Singh was present in the area of Village Darri.  At about 11:00 A.M., S.I. Didar Singh received a secret information that Pargat Singh son of Kartar Singh,

Jaswant Singh son of Gurnam Singh, Pala son of Balkar Singh and Kulwant Singh @ Kanta @ Balkar Singh, had been smuggling poppy husk and the said persons were  coming  from  Uttar  Pradesh  in  a  truck  bearing  registration  No.DIG  7027 alongwith some bags  of poppy  husk, which were  concealed  under the bags of Taramira (Khal) and that if a naka is laid in the area of T-point Kurari, the said truck could be apprehended.  On relying upon the information, ruqa (Ex. PE) was sent by S.I. Didar Singh to the Police Station and on the basis of said ruqa, an F.I.R. (Ex.PF) was registered by S.I. Nirmal Singh at Police Station Sohana. Thereafter, the police party headed by S.I. Didar Singh, laid a naka in the area of T-Point, Kurari where one Daljit Singh son of Karnail Singh was also associated in the said police party.

3.    On the next day i.e. 11.4.1994 at around 10:00 A.M., aforesaid truck was seen coming on the road and a signal was given to stop it.  When the truck was stopped, immediately accused Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh, who were stated to be sitting on the back side of the truck, immediately jumped and ran away.  They were chased by the members of the police party, but they escaped. On enquiry, the driver of the said truck disclosed his name as Pargat Singh and the another person, who was stated to be sitting along side the driver's seat disclosed his name as Pala Singh.  Some bags were found lying on the back side of the said truck.  Accused Pargat Singh and Pala Singh were asked by the SI Didar Singh, whether they wanted to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, the said accused stated that they be searched along with aforesaid truck in the presence of Gazetted Officer upon which, Parshotam Singh,DSP., Mohali, was called at the spot. The said D.S.P. reached there and disclosed his identity to both the accused and apprised them of their legal right of search in the presence of another Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. However, the accused reposed their faith upon him. Then the search of

the truck was conducted by S.I. Didar Singh on the direction and supervision of DSP Parshotam Singh.  During the search, 50 bags of poppy husk were recovered, which were lying underneath the bags of Taramira (Khal).  Each bag was found to be containing 40 KGs. of poppy husk. Out of each bag, two samples of 250 grams each of poppy husk were separated.  100 samples, each weighing 250 grams, and 50 bags, each containing 39.5 K.Gs of poppy husk, were sealed by S.I. Didar Singh with his seal bearing impressions 'DS'. Sample of seal (Ex. PB) was prepared. Thereafter, the seal after use, was given to independent witness Daljit Singh. The above said sealed samples, sealed bags and sample of seal were taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PC), which was signed by S.I. Joga Singh, H.C. Avtar Singh, S.I. Didar Singh and independent witness Daljit Singh and attested by DSP Parshotam Singh at the spot.  Aforesaid truck, its Registration Certificate and Driving Licence of Pargat Singh alongwith 203 bags of Taramira (Khal) were taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PH), which was also signed by S.I. Joga Singh, H.C. Avtar Singh and Daljit Singh and attested by S.I. Didar Singh. The memos of arrest of accused Pala Singh and Pargat Singh were prepared which are Exs. PM & PO. The personal search memos of the said accused are Exs. PL&PN. The rough site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.PK) was also prepared. The statements of PWs were recorded at the spot. On return to the Police Station, the case property alongwith accused was produced before Inspector Jagtar Singh, SHO, Police Station Sohana who verifying the facts of the case, appended his seal bearing impressions 'JS' on the case property and memo of entrustment (Ex.PA) was prepared and then the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.  During investigation, samples were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner.

4.    During further investigation accused Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh were also arrested. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

5.    On  completion  of  investigation,  challan  was  presented  against  the accused in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate.

6.    On  presentation  of  the  challan,  copies  of  the  challan  and  other documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.    Initially, charge for offence under Sections 15 and 61 of the NDPS Act was framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8.    During the trial, accused Pargat Singh and Jaswant Singh jumped bail and they were declared Proclaimed Offenders. However, accused Pala Singh and Kulwant Singh faced trial and were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide judgment and order of sentence dated

23.8.1997.

9.    Subsequently, accused Pargat Singh was re-arrested in this case and supplementary  challan  against  him  was  presented  in  the  Court.  Charges  under Sections 15 and 61 of the NDPS Act, were framed against accused Pargat Singh on

4.12.2003, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  Then the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.

10.    During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 DSP Jagtar Singh, PW2 HC Mohinder Singh, PW3 HC Nikka Ram, PW4 Inspector Didar Singh  and  PW5  Inspector  Nirmal  Singh.    Besides  oral  evidence,  documentary evidence led in the prosecution evidence are recovery memo (Ex.PG), sample of seal

(Ex.PB)  and  report of  Chemical Examiner  (Ex.PO) tendered  by  learned Public Prosecutor and closed the prosecution evidence.

11.    After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence were put to accused to which he pleaded innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.

12.    Accused opted to lead defence but closed his defence evidence without examining any witness.

13.    After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the whole record, the learned Special Judge, Rupnagar, convicted the appellant Pargat Singh under Sections 15 and 61 of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay file of Rs.1,00,000/- and in case of default to pay fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years vide its judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2006.

14.    Hence, the present appeal. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

15.    Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly convicted the appellant. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgment and order of sentence dated

24.01.2006.

16.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State argues on the lines of judgment dated 24.01.2006 and contends that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 15 and 61 of the NDPS Act.

17.    We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and perused the whole record of the case in hand.

ANA.Y/I/ OF THE RECORD )0.    E3.PA is the memo regarding produ!tion of !ase propert+ Popp+ hus:. %he same is reprodu!ed as under$- "English translation of Ex. PA in Sessions Case No. 19 dated 18"10" 2003 titled as State Vs. Pargat Singh in FIR No.18 dated 10"04"94 under Section 15/61/85 of N.D.P.S. Act Police Station Sohana decided by Sh.Karamjit Singh Addl. Sessions Judge Rupnagar on 24"01"06.

PS Sohana District Ropar

State Versus

¶1Pargat Singh s/o Kartar Singh Jatt r/o Habbri District Kaithal

¶2Pala Singh s/o Balkar Singh Jatt r/o Ajjpur P.S. (sic) UP Mujaffar Nagar

FIR No. 18 Dated 10"04"94 u/s 15"61"85 NDPS Act PS Sohana Memo regarding Production of case property Poppy husk In the presence of below mentioned witnesses SI Didar Singh I/C CIA Mohali the case property of the above mentioned case 100 parcels sealed with his seal impression D.S. and 50 bags of poppy husk weighing 39 1/2 sealed with his seal impression D.S. alongwith sample seal and truck bearing no. DIG 7027 and 203 bags of straws produced before me. They were taken into police possession vide memo and sealed them with the seal impression J.S.

Witnesses Produced by SI Joga Singh Didar Singh SI CIA Mohali CIA Mohali Sd/" Sd/"

Witnesses ЕХРА Sd/" HC Avtar Singh Sd/" SHO PS Sohana 479 Special Judge 11"04"94 CIA Mohali 30"04"04

Sd/"

Seal"

)1.    E3.PB is the spe!ial report, "hi!h is reprodu!ed as under:$ "English translation of Ex. PB in Sessions Case No. 19 dated 18" 10"2003 titled as State Vs. Pargat Singh in FIR No. 18 dated 10"04"94

under Section 15/61/85 of N.D.P.S. Act Police Station Sohana decided by Sh. Karamjit Singh Addl. Sessions Judge Rupnagar on 24"01"06.

In the court of Illaqa Magistrate Kharar PS Mohali District Ropar Sohana

Special Report

FIR No. 18 Dated 10"04"94 u/s 15"61"85 NDPS Act PS Sohana

Respected Sir, The description of the case is that SI Didar Singh and SI Joga Singh used govt. Vehicle to reach the bus stand of village Derry under the supervision of Sh. Paramraj Singh S.P. (D) Sahib Ropar in connection with secret duty. Then SI Didar Singh received a secret information from a informer that Pargat Singh s/o Kartar Singh Jatt, Jaswant singh @ Jassa s/o Gurnam singh r/o Habbri district Kaithal, Pala singh s/o Balkar Singh r/o Kala Majri, Kulwant Singh @ Kala s/o Balkar Singh r/o Ajijpur district Mujaffarnagar are habtual smugglers of poppy husk. They are coming from Barelly U.P. in a truck No. DIG 7027 loading with bags of poppy husk hide in the straws. They will sell it in the villages through link road. If the nakabandi will be conducted then they can be arrested alongwith truck DIG 7027 and with poppy husk. SI Didar Singh sent ruqa to the police station to register the case. After conducting continuous nakabandi at T"Point Kurari then on 11"04"94 accused Pargat Singh s/o Kartar Singh r/o Habbri, Pala Singh s/o Balkar Singh Jatt r/o Kala Majra district Mujaffarnagar alonwith truck DIG 7027 in which 50 bags of poppy husk 40 kg. Each recovered. The poppy husk was hide in the straws. Parshotam Singh DSP Mohali recovered them. The two samples of 250 gm were taken from the each bag and parcels were prepared. Then SI Didar Singh sealed 50 bags of rest of the poppy husk with his seal DS and taken into police possession vide memo. Sample seal was prepared separately. The straws were also taken into police possession vide separate memo. The accused were arrested. SI Didar Singh produced accused Pargat Singh and Pala Singh alongwith case property in the police station. After checking the 50 bags of poppy husk were sealed with my seal impression JS. The arrest of two accused is awaited. The statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were completed. The report is presented after getting completed. Sd/ seal SHO P.S. Sohana Dated 11"04"94"

&(.    E3.PG  is  the  memo  regarding  re!o er+  of  Popp+  hus:,  "hi!h  is reprodu!ed as under:$ "English translation of Ex. PG in Sessions Case No. 19 dated 18"10" 2003 titled as State Vs. Pargat Singh in FIR No. 18 dated 10"04"94 under Section 15/61/85 of N.D.P.S. Act Police Station Sohana decided by Sh. Karamjit Singh Addl. Sessions Judge Rupnagar on 24"01"06.

P.S.: Sohana District: Ropar State Versus 1"Pala Singh s/o Balkar Singh Jatt r/o Kala Majra, district Mujaffar nagar (UP). 2"Pargat Singh s/o Kartar Singh r/o Habbri district Kaithal (Haryana) 3"Kulwant Singh 4" Jaswant Singh FIR No. 18 Dated 10"04"94 u/s 15"61"85 NDPS Act PS Sohana

Memo regarding recovery of Poppy husk

In the presence of below mentioned witnesses and Sh. Parshotam Singh DSP Mohali 50 bags of poppy husk were recovered from the possession of the accused above mentioned which they hid in the truck bearing registration no. DIG 7027. The accused hid poppy husk into the bags of straws. Each bag was found 40 Kg. alongwith bag on weighing on the spot. From every bag two samples of 250 gm were taken out and parcels were prepared. Each parcel and 50 bags were sealed with the seal impression D.S.' Sample seal was prepared separately. The samples alongwith 50 bags were taken into police possession as proof. The seal was handed over to Daljit Singh PW after use. Witnesses: Witnesses: Sd/" Daljit Singh s/o Karnail Singh Sd/" I/C CIA r/o (sic) PS Sohana SI Joga Singh Mohali Sd/" 11"4"94

Witnesses: Ex. PG HC Avtar Singh Sd/" seal CIA Mohali Spl. Judge Sd/" 28"10"04"

A perusal of the re!ord as referred to abo e sho"s that there is no homogeneous mi>ing of the popp+$hus:, "hi!h "as in 2( bag par!els.

&).    E3.PU is the Ehemi!al Fab Report.  %he same is reprodu!ed as under:$ "CHAMICAL LABORATORY Report on the analysis of the samples of Poppy Head, forwarded by, S.S.P. Ropar referred to in his endst No 17450/EACE dated:" 28.4.94. The exhibits marked here 209"P"April94 to 258"P"April 94 were received on 29.4.94. with the particulars overleaf. The seals of the exhibits were intact on arrival till the time their analysis was started and agreed with the specimen seal sent. The exhibits remained in my safe custody after their receipt. The analysis of the samples marked here 209"P"April94 to 258" P"April94 are as under. The Analytical data is enclosed herewith. OPINION: " The analysis indicates that the contents of the exhibits marked are 209"P"April94 to 258"P"April94 are of PoppyHead. Sd/" (Sushobhita Kumari) Seal Deputy"Chem"Exam"to, Govt."Punjab, Chandigarh."

A perusal of the re!ord as referred to abo e sho"s that after !hemi!al e>amination, there is no mentioning regarding re$sealing "ith English alphabets and return of the propert+. &&.    3SP  ,agtar  Singh  "as  e>amined  as  PA$),  "ho  stated  that  on )).('.)11', S. 3idar Singh and S. ,oga Singh, DE A tar Singh along "ith !ase propert+ and a!!used appeared before him.  %he !ase propert+ "as !onsisted of 2( bags of popp+ hus: ea!h !ontaining @1.2 Kgs. pupp+ hus: along "ith "eight of bag,

100 samples, sample seal bearing impressions 'DS' alongwith one truck No.DIG-7727 and 203 bags of Terramara (Khal).  He got verified the facts of the case from SI Didar Singh and thereafter, appended his seal bearing impressions 'JS' on the case property.  Thereafter, memo of entrustment (Ex.PA) was prepared, which was signed by SI Joga Singh, SI Didar Singh and HC Avtar Singh and he also attested the said memo.  The case property was then deposited with the MHC of Police Station Sohana.  He further stated that he had seen the truck in which 50 sealed bags alongwith 50 samples are there, which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P50 and sample of the seal is Ex.PB.

23.    In his cross-examination, he stated that recovery was not effected in his presence. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer.  He again submitted that it is correct that the gunny bags which were produced were torn.

24.    HC Nikka Ram was examined as PW3, who in his cross-examination stated that case property was deposited with him on 11.04.1994, which included 50 bags  containing  poppy  husk  and  100  sealed  samples  of  250  grams  each.    On

28.04.1994, 50 sealed samples were sent through Constable Mohinder Singh to the office  of  Deputy  Chemical,  Chandigarh.    However,  on  that  date,  Constable Mohinder Singh came back alongwith the above said samples, as objection was raised.  He further stated that again on 29.04.1994, 50 sealed samples were handed over to Constable Mohinder Singh to take them to the office of Deputy Chemical, Chandigarh.  On that day, after depositing the said sealed samples in the office of Deputy Chemical, Chandigarh, Constable Mohinder Singh came back to the Police Station and he handed over the receipt to him.  He further stated that in paragraph

No.5 of Ex.PD (which is his statement on affidavit), there was no mention of handing over of sample seal to Constable Mohinder Singh.

25.    Inspector  Didar  Singh,  SHO,  Police  Station  Lambran,  District Jalandhar, was examined as PW4.  In his cross-examination, he stated that since no private person was available, therefore, no private person was associated.  He further stated that Pargat Singh accused was known to him as earlier also, he came to Police Station alongwith other persons.  Further stated that earlier also Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh visited the Police Station before the date of occurrence.  He again stated that all the police officials had been taking out the bags from the truck and HC Avtar Singh and Sodhi Ram driver were deputed by him to bring weighing scale and weights.  It was a big weighing scale.  The weights used were of 20 Kgs., 10 Kgs., 5 Kgs., 100 grams, 200 grams, 50 grams and 500 grams.  He further stated that DSP Parshotam Singh did not seal the case property.  Further stated that Daljit Singh returned his seal after 8/10 days of the occurrence in village Sheikhan Majra.

26.     This Court in CRA-S-5190-SB-2015 titled as "Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Punjab" along with other connected appeals, decided on 18.09.2024, held as under:- "6.  Before  proceeding  to  render  an  answer  to  the  substantial question of law (supra), the making of allusion(s) to the standing order No.1/89, as drawn by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), is of utmost importance. In clause 2.3 and

2.4 thereof, clauses whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, it becomes elucidated that the quantity to be borne in each sample, thus for a chemical test becoming made thereons at the laboratory concerned,

shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. "2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn.

2.4 In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container."

¶7However, it has been further elucidated therein, that if seizure of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) takes places, thereupon the sample to be derived from the bulk is to be weighing 24 grams, thus for the same becoming sent for testings to the laboratory concerned. Similarly, for the duplicate sample also, the same or similar quantities become envisaged thereins. Moreover, the seized drugs in the packages/containers, become thus prior to the samples (supra) becoming drawn from the bulk, rather ordained to become well mixed or being homogeneously mixed. However, in case of the seizure taking place of a single package or container, thereupon it is contemplated in the above extracted provisions, that only one sample in duplicate shall

¶8Furthermore, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), has issued a notification, on 23.12.2022, whereins, in Chapters II and III thereof, certain provisions are carried in Clauses 4 to 11 thereofs. The said clauses become extracted hereinafter. "'.  Des,<#(),"#  "*  <"!"=#s. – (1) The godowns for storage of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances, conveyance and other articles seized under the Act shall be designated by,"

(a) the department and agencies of the Central Government whose officers have been delegated powers of an officer"in"charge of a police station under section 53 of the Act;

(b) The State Police and the department and agencies of the State Government whose officers have been delegated powers of an officer"in"charge of a police station under section 53 of the Act.

(2) Godowns referred to in sub"rule (1) shall be identified taking into consideration the security aspect and juxtaposition to court of law and such godowns shall be placed under the over"all supervision and charge of an officer of Gazette rank of the department and agencies referred to in sub"rule (1).

5. De5"s,) ,# <"!"=#s. – (1) All seized materials referred to in sub"rule (1) of rule 3, after seizure under the Act shall be deposited by the seizing officer in the nearest godown designated under rule 4 within forty"eight hours from the time of seizure alongwith a forwarding memorandum in Form"1: Provided that the said time period may be relaxed by further twenty"four hours after providing of reasonable

justification by the officer to whom the seized material has been forwarded under sub"section (3) of Section 52 of the Act.

(2) The officer in"charge of a godown, before giving an acknowledgement of receipt in Form"2, shall satisfy himself that the seized materials are properly packed, sealed and in conformity with the details mentioned in Form"1.

(3) The officer, who had seized the material, shall hand over the acknowledgement of receipt of seized material in Form"2, along with all other documents relating to the seizure, to the Investigating Officer for further proceedings.

6.  /)"r(<e  "*  se,>e!  8()er,(? ,# <"!"=#. – (1) After receipt of the seized material, the officer in"charge of the godown shall ensure that the seized material is properly arranged, case"wise, for quick retrieval.

(2) The officer in"charge of a godown shall maintain a register of material received in the godown in Form"3.

(3) All seized material, excluding the conveyances, shall be stored in safes and vaults with double lock. @.  I#s5e+),"#  "*  <"!"=#. – (1) The department and agencies referred to in rule 4 and the State Police shall designate an Inspecting Officer for each godown, who shall be higher in rank to that of the officer in"charge of the godown.

(2) The Inspecting Officer referred to in sub"rule (1) shall make periodical inspection of the godown, at least once in every quarter, and shall record his remarks in the godown register in Form"3 with respect to security, safety and early disposal of the seized material.

(3) The departments and agencies, referred to in rule 4 and the State Police shall maintain periodical reports and

returns to monitor the safe receipt, deposit, storage, accounting and disposal of seized materials under the Act. A. A55?,+(),"# )" M(<,s)r()e. – After the seized material under the Act is forwarded to the officer"in"charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53 of the Act or if it is seized by such an officer himself, he shall prepare an inventory of such material in Form"4 and apply to the Magistrate, at the earliest, under sub"section (2) of section 52A of the Act in Form"5.

4. /(85?es )" ;e !r(=# ,# )Be 5rese#+e "* M(<,s)r()e. – After application to the Magistrate under sub"section (2) of section 52A of the Act is made, the Investigating Officer shall ensure that samples of the seized material are drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the same is certified by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the said"sub"section. &0. Dr(=,#< )Be s(85?es. – (1) One sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn from each package and container seized.

(2) When the packages and containers seized together are of identical size and weight bearing identical marking and the contents of each package give identical results on colour test by the drugs identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages and containers may carefully be bunched in lots of not more than ten packages or containers, and for each such lot of packages and containers, one sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn: Provided that in the case of ganja, poppy straw and hashish (charas) it may be bunched in lots of not more than fourty packages or containers.

(3) In case of drawing sample from a particular lot, it shall be ensured that representative sample in equal quantity is taken from each package or container of that lot and mixed

together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. &&. C7(#),)D )" ;e !r(=# *"r s(85?,#<. – (1) Except in cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish), where a quantity of not less than twenty"four grams shall be drawn for each sample, in all other cases not less than five grams shall be drawn for each sample and the same quantity shall be taken for the duplicate sample.

(2) The seized substances in the packages or containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample, in duplicate, is drawn.

(3) In case where seized quantities is less than that required for sampling, the whole of the seized quantity may be sent."

¶9Tritely put, in the above extracted statutory provisions, it has been mandated, that the representative sample to be derived from the bulk rather is required to be so drawn only after the entire seized bulk becoming homogeneously mixed. Moreover, thereins also exist, thus provisions relating to the apposite quantities becoming enclosed in the sealed cloth parcels, besides exist provisions with respect to prompt dispatches being made of the apposite samples for therebys testing being made at the laboratory concerned. Moreover it also becomes ordained therein, that expeditious testings, thus are required to be made by the Chemical Examiner concerned, vis"a"vis the stuff enclosed in the samples parcels, as become sent to him, for analyses thereons becoming made. Imperatively also thereins becomes underlined the necessity of remnants of samples becoming returned with reference to the test memo, to the office from where the samples were received, but

within three months after analysis becoming made thereovers at the Laboratory concerned.

¶10However, immediately after acceptance of the test report by the Court of the Magistrate, the duplicate sample held by the Investigating Officer becomes ordained to become deposited in the godown referred to in Rule 5 along with the remnants of the sample.

¶11The inference(s) is to be drawn therefroms are that, the said above extracted provisions, relate to the inventory becoming drawn in terms of Section 2 of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), thus in the presence of the Magistrate, by the investigating officer concerned. The said provisions becomes extracted hereinafter. "E52A.  D,s5"s(?  "*  se,>e!  #(r+"),+  !r7<s  (#! 5sD+B")r"5,+ s7;s)(#+es.—[(1) xxx

(2) Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer"in"charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub"section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub"section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,

CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M)

controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of—

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub"section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of 1[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub"section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.]"

¶12Though, the said reference does not cover the subject relating to the creation of storage facilities in the police malkhana concerned, nor the subject reference relates to prompt dispatches being made of the samples to the laboratories concerned, rather for ensuring that the stuff enclosed therein becoming promptly examined nor also though the subject appertains to expeditious testings being made vis"a"vis the stuff inside the sample parcels. Moreover, though the subject at hand also

does not relate to the return of the tested sample to the office wherefrom it became received nor does it deal with the said returned parcels, thus enclosing thereins the stuff examined, becoming produced before the Court concerned along with the test report.

¶13Nonetheless, even if the above aspects do not fall within the subject reference, but the alluded to (supra) provisions existing in the notification (supra) do beget striking conclusion qua: a) There being an imperative necessity of testings being made of the stuff inside the sample parcels. b) The inventory as becomes prepared in the presence of Magistrate concerned, in terms of Section 52A of the Act, but without testings of the stuff enclosed in the sample parcels, thus being made at the laboratory concerned, rather per se not acquiring the utmost evidentiary vigor.

¶14Moreover, thereins as an obligation becomes cast upon the police department concerned, to ensure the creations of adequate storage facilities in the malkhanas concerned, as well, as an obligation becomes cast upon the investigating agencies, to make prompt dispatches of the samples to the laboratories concerned, so that, the enclosed thereins stuff becomes examined.

¶15Tritely also the return, of the examined stuff inside the said parcels, to the police malkhana concerned, thus subsequent thereto apposite production in Court along with the test report becomes enshrined therein, to be an imperative obligation made upon all concerned, whereafters, thus on conclusion of trial the produced in

Court case properties is to be ordered to be deposited in the godown concerned.

¶16In paragraph 35 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in FN""r A<( 9. /)()e "* P7#:(; (#! (#")BerG Cr,8,#(? A55e(? N".&0%' "* 200A2 !e+,!e! "# 04.0@.200A, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, it has been enshrined that the alluded to (supra) necessities are the required to be proven sine qua non, thus for the charge drawn against the accused becoming declared to become unflinchingly proven. "35. The High Court proceeded on the basis that non" production of physical evidence is not fatal to the prosecution case but the fact remains that a cumulative view with respect to the discrepancies in physical evidence creates an overarching inference which dents the credibility of the prosecution. Even for the said purpose the retracted confession on the part of the accused could not have been taken recourse to."

¶17Now the above referred to notification(s) issued by the Government of India, appear to also become aprobated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a judgment rendered case titled as FG(7#)er E!=,# 1,r+Ber 9. /)()e "* G"(2 /e+re)(r,() P(#:,2 G"(G2 Cr,8,#(? A55e(? N".6'2 "* &44&2 !e+,!e! "# &6.0%.&44%. The above appears to be in tandem with the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in FN""r A<( 9. /)()e "* P7#:(; (#! (#")BerG Cr,8,#(? A55e(? N".&0%' "* 200A2 !e+,!e! "# 04.0@.200A, relevant paragraph whereof becomes

"J. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 52A and 53 – Customs Act, 1962, Section 110(IB) – Physical evidence – Case Property – Recovery of heroin from accused – Case property destroyed and not produced – Physical evidence relating to three samples taken from the bulk amount of heroin were also not produced – Bulk quantity was destroyed the samples were essential to be produced and proved as primary evidence for the purpose of establishing the fact of recovery of heroin as envisaged under Section 52A of the Act."

¶18The ire point relating to the unneccessity, of laboratory testing being made of the entire recovered stuff, but is grooved in the factum, that the hereinabove alluded to provisions as carried in the notification (supra), do cast an obligation upon all concerned, to ensure that only after the entire seizure becoming homogeneously mixed, qua thereafters from the bulk rather residue samples becoming drawn but in the mode, manner and quantities detailed hereinabove.

¶19It appears that given the immensity of the weight of the apposite bulk seizure, that therebys after the concerned, thus homogeneously mixing the bulk seizure, hence evidently of an immense weight, whereafters the concerned become enjoined to draw samples from the bulk. Reiteratedly, the immensity of the weight of the apposite seizure is curable by the drawings of residue samples from the bulk, but only when prior thereto rather the entire bulk becomes homogeneously mixed. Consequently, therebys the constraining factor of inadequacy of spaces within the laboratory concerned, wherebys the laboratory concerned, may on account of shortage of spaces there, thus may

become precluded to examine the entire bulk, thus appears to become eased. As such, to avoid the immense load of the entire bulk seizure travelling to the laboratories concerned, that derivative samples from the bulk are envisaged but only after such derivation taking place rather from the bulk but only after all concerned, reiteratedly homogeneously mixing the entire bulk seizure, otherwise not.

¶20Conspicuously, the hereinabove extracted respective standing order and notification become declared by a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as FN""r A<( 9. /)()e "* P7#:(; (#!  (#")BerG  Cr,8,#(?  A55e(?  N".&0%'  "*  200A2  !e+,!e!  "#

04.0@.200A2 to be holding a mandatory character and also become ordained therein to be requiring completest adherence. Contrarily on breach thereof becoming made, therebys may be the accused would become entitled to an acquittal.

¶21Furthermore, in case the entire bulk is homogeneously mixed and derivative samples are derived therefroms, resultantly the effect thereof would be that, the incriminatory finding as become recorded on the stuff inside the sample parcels as sent to the laboratory concerned, thus would acquire a presumption of truth, irrespective of the fact that the entire bulk wherefrom the derivative samples are borrowed, but after the entire seizure becoming homogeneously mixed, rather not becoming sent for analyses thereovers, being made at the laboratory concerned. Contrarily, in case the entire bulk seizure remains not homogeneously mixed, thereupon the charge drawn against the accused appertaining to the weight of the entire weight of the seizure,

de hors affirmative results being made in respect of the stuff inside the residue sample parcels, as, sent to the laboratory concerned, rather would come under a cloud of doubt, whereupon benefit thereof would accrue to the accused.

¶22As an illustration, if the 08 packets were allegedly recovered from the appellant and only two packets were having contraband substance and rest 6 packets did not have any contraband; though all may be of the same colour, when we mix the substances of all 8 packets into one or two; then definitely, the result would be of the total quantity and not of the two pieces. Therefore, the process adopted by the prosecution creates suspicion. In such a situation, as per settled law, the benefit thereof should go in favour of the accused. It does not matter the quantity, but proper procedure has to be followed, without which the results would be negative.

¶23Reiteratedly, in case, the derivative samples from the bulk are drawn but without the entire bulk seizure becoming homogeneously mixed, thereupon the laboratory examination of the stuff inside the sample cloth parcels rather would not prove the charge relating to the weight of the entire bulk seizure taking place, at the crime site, thus from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused.

¶24Contrarily, in case the entire bulk seizure is not homogeneously mixed or when the narcotic drug(s) or psychotropic substance, does become carried in different vials or in different packets, besides upon the said mode(s) of carryings of (supra), becomes not homogeneously mixed, thereupons, even if a fragment or a portion thereof becomes

extracted from one vial or only from one packet, thus for creating a residue parcel, it would beget the ill consequence of the accused becoming entitled to an acquittal. Resultantly, when despite the evident absence of apposite homogeneous mixings of the entire bulk, be it borne in packets, containers or be it being carried in different vials, besides when only a part of the fragment or portion of the seizure or only one or two of the vials, yet the said extracted fragment becomes sent for examination to the laboratory concerned, but the apposite affirmative laboratory examination as becomes made vis"a"vis the stuff inside the sample parcels, rather would not make the charge drawn against the accused, thus for his allegedly exclusively and consciously possessing, the entire seizure, thus also becoming efficaciously proven.

¶25Conspicuously when for the drawing of an effective conclusion, that the charge drawn against the accused for his allegedly consciously and exclusively possessing, the entire bulk, but requires that only after homogeneous mixing of the bulk seizure, taking place, be it of psychotropic substance, in vials or in any other mode or be it with respect of narcotic drugs carried in whatsoever mode, rather residues therefroms becoming drawn, whereafter an affirmative finding on the stuff inside the residues, is required to be made by the Chemical Examiner concerned. /(85?e 5r"+e!7re ,# res5e+) "* 5sD+B")r"5,+ s7;s)(#+e

¶26In case no batch number is mentioned, in the recovered psychotropic substance, thus carried in the form of tablets/strips, thereupon at least one of the tablets from all the relevant strips rather

is to be extracted, as residue sample and the same is required to be sent for testings being made thereovers, at the laboratory concerned. However, in case batch number is mentioned in all the recovered bulk strips, thereupon only one of the tablets in the entire haul is required to be sent for testings being made thereovers, at the laboratory concerned. However, the quantity of the sample to be derived from the bulk is to be in terms of the provisions (supra), but with a further safeguard that not only vis"a"vis the entire bulk but also vis"a"vis the sample parcel, the relevant batch number is required to be made on the covers of each of the sealed cloth parcels.

¶27Therefore, the sampling procedure in respect of bulk seizure of the apposite psychotropic substance, ordains that the making of the bulk seizure, besides derivation of a sample parcel, therefroms would be vitiated unless adherence becomes made to the hereinafter extracted underlined canons. "(v) It has also come in the evidence that there was no batch number, name of manufacturer or other details given on the bottles of Rexcof syrup and therefore, the sample of one bottle taken, was also not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the aforesaid standing order. In view of the judgment of this Court in Harjinder Singh (supra), the sealed sample cannot be held to be a representative parcel of the entire bulk allegedly recover from the appellant"

&<.    Rele ant portion of the judgment dated &'.().&((* is reprodu!ed as under:$ "11. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that on 10.4.94 Police Party headed by S.I. Didar Singh received secret information regarding the accused who were traveling in truck No.DIG"7027 alongwith poppy husk concealed under the bags of Khal. On the basis of said secret information, ruga was sent to the Police Station and then F.I.R. Ex. PF was registered. That the Police Party laid naka at the disclosed place and independent witness Daljit Singh was associated in the Police Party. That from the perusal of testimony of PWs, it is evident that on

11.4.1994 at about 10.00 A.M. truck No. DIG"7027 which came from the side of Village Sheikhan Majra was apprehended by the police and at that time Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh escaped from the said truck while Pargat Singh and Pala Singh were apprehended and the said truck was found to be carrying 50 bags each containing 40 KGs of poppy husk and the said bags were lying concealed under the bags of Khal. That before effecting the search of the truck Parshotam Singh, D.S.P. Mohali was called at the spot, who disclosed to the accused about their legal right of search. From any other Gazetted Officer of Magistrate. However, accused reposed confidence in him. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that out of each bags two samples of 250 Grams each of poppy husk were separated at the spot. The said samples and the bags were sealed by S.I. Didar Singh with his seal bearing impression 'D.S.' and separate sample of seal, Ex.PB, was prepared. The said

CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M)

poppy husk was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PG while truck was taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PH. Both the accused were formally arrested. That on return to the Police Station the case property was produced before S.H.O. Jagtar Singh who also appended his seal on the case property. That in order to prove the link evidence prosecution examined PW2 & PW3 who proved their affidavits Exs.PC & PD. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that subsequently independent witness joined hands with the accused and, as such, he has been given up by the prosecution. That the report of Chemical Examiner is Ex.PU. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt against Pargat Singh.

¶12On the other hand, the Ld. Defence counsel submitted that compliance of provisions of Section 42 N.D.P.S. Act was not made by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that even otherwise prosecution story, seems to be highly doubtful. As per prosecution version secret information was received at about 11"00 A.M. on

10.4.1994 and then the naka was laid, while the truck was apprehended at 10"00 AM. On 11.4.1994. It is highly improbable that two of the occupants of the truck, namely, Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh succeeded in running away in presence of about 9/10 police officials, that too during day time. The Ld. defence counsel further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove link evidence in order to establish that samples remained intact till the time they reached the office of Chemical Examiner. That PW2 stated that the samples were taken on

CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M)

28.4.1994, whereas as per his affidavit the samples were taken to the office of Chemical Examiner on 29.4.1994. The Ld. defence counsel further submitted that PW2 failed to disclose as to which part of his affidavit, Ex.PC, is correct as per his belief and which part is correct as per his knowledge. The Ld. defence counsel further submitted that PW1 Jagtar Singh kept his seal with him after use and even otherwise, seals on the case property are illegible. The Ld. defence counsel submitted that there is no independent corroboration to the prosecution version. That ownership of the truck has not been proved and no C.F.S.L. form was filled at the spot. That as per prosecution version D.S.P. Parshotam Singh was called at the spot. However, the case property is not bearing his seal impression. That even otherwise, no offer in writing was made to accused by D.S.P. at the spot. That even otherwise, there are material discrepancies in the statements of PWs regarding the manner in which bags were weighed. That PW4 stated that accused reposed confidence in him. On the other hand, PW6 stated that accused opted for the search in presence of the Gazetted Officer. The Ld. defence counsel further submitted that co"accused Kulwant Singh who was convicted by the Ld. trial Court filed appeal which was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 25.1.2001. That in these circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Pargat Singh who deserves to be acquitted.

¶13I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld. defence counsel during arguments.

CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M)

¶14It was a case of secret information. It has come into evidence that immediately on the receipt of secret information ruqa was sent to the police station by the Investigating Officer and then special reports were sent to Ilaga Magistrate and Higher Police Officials. The concerned D.S.P. was also called at the spot by the Investigating Officer. So, it cannot be said that provisions of section 42 N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with in the case in hand. It is evident that D.S.P. Mohali, namely, Parshotam Singh reached the place of recovery after getting information. It has come into evidence that said D.S.P. gave option to the accused to have search of truck from him or any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The said option even if oral was good enough under the law. Even otherwise, such an option/offer was not required under law as it was not a case of personal search of the accused. The recovery of poppy husk was effected in presence of independent witness Daljit Singh. The said independent witness was given up by the prosecution being won over by the accused. It is generally seen that in such like cases witnesses from the public show reluctance to appear in the Court against the criminals due to fear. In the case in hand, the said independent witness was not examined by the accused in his defence. Even otherwise, the search of the truck was conducted in presence of Gazetted Police Officer namely, D.S.P. Parshotam Singh. So, it is immaterial if independent witness Daljit Singh, has not been examined by the prosecution.

¶15The statements of PW4, PW6 & PW7 are quite consistent and trust worthy with regard to recovery of 50 bags of poppy husk. The Ld.

CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M)

defence counsel failed to put any dent in their statements. The statements of the said police officials cannot be discarded merely because they are from Police Department. It is evident that the search of the truck No.DIG"7027 was conducted by the Investigating officer in presence of D.S.P. Parshotam Singh. From the perusal of testimony of PW4, PW6 and PWT, it is evident that 50 bags each containing 40 KGs, of poppy husk were recovered from the said truck. Two samples of 250 Grams each were separated out of each of the said 50 bags. It is also evident that the said samples and each bag containing 39.5 KGs of poppy husk were sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal bearing impression 'D.S.'. After use the seal was handed over to independent witness and the said poppy husk was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PG which bears attestation of D.S.P. Parshotam Singh. It hardly matters if D.S.P. had not appended his seal on the case property at the spot. The arrest memos of accused Pargat Singh and Pala Singh, are also proved on the record. From the perusal of testimony of PWl, it is evident that on return to the Police Station, case property was produced before S.H.. of the concerned Police Station his seal bearing impression 'J.S.' on the case property and then the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PWl also proved memo of entrustment of case property, Ex. PA.

¶16To prove the link evidence prosecution examined PW2 and PW3 who tendered their affidavits Exs. PC & PD respectively. From the perusal of said affidavits, it is evident that 50 sealed samples were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner on 28.4.1994 through Constable

CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M)

Mohinder Singh but objection was raised and said samples were returned and then after the removal of objection the said samples were again taken to the office of Chemical Examiner on 29.4.1994 and deposited there. The above stated affidavits are duly verified and attested as per the provisions of law. Even as per report of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PU, it is clear that said samples were received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 29.4.1994. After analysis the Chemical Examiner gave is opinion that the said samples are of poppy heads. There is nothing on the record to show that the samples were tampered with at any stage, till they reached the office of Chemical Examiner. In these circumstances, it hardly matters, if no C.F.S.L. form was filled at the spot. It is natural that seals on the case property became illegible or had been broken during the period of ten years as the recovery was effected in 1994 whereas the evidence was recorded in the year 2004" 2005. It is also natural that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of PWs after the passage of time of ten years. There is nothing unnatural in the prosecution story. Two of the occupants, namely, Jaswant Singh and Kulwant Singh jumped from the truck and escaped. Later on, Kulwant Singh was arrested. There is ample evidence on the record that at the time of recovery Pargat Singh was driving the truck while Pala Singh was sitting with him near the driver's seat. From the perusal of record it appears that the said truck was owned by Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of village Havri, District Kaithal (Haryana). From the perusal of judgment dated 23.8.1997 passed by the Court of

Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, it is evident that on completion of trial accused Kulwant Singh and Pala Singh were convicted under Section 15/51/85 N.D. P.S. Act. Aqainst the said judament both of them filed appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. Appeal filed by Kulwant Singh was accepted and he was acquitted on the ground that prosecution failed to prove his identity. However, the appeal filed by Pala Singh was dismissed as far his conviction was concerned, however, his sentence of imprisonment was reduced. Thus, accused Pargat Singh cannot take any benefit of the judgment dated

25.1.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court whereby Kulwant Singh has been acquitted.

¶17Accused Parqat Singh has taken plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is quite unbelievable that such a huge quantity of poppy husk (50 bags weighing 40 KGs. Each), would be falsely implanted on the accused. In this context reference be made to Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal), Page 360 (Punjab & Haryana).

¶18In the light of above discussion, it is held that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against accused Pargat Singh. Accused Pargat Singh is hereby convicted under Section 15/61/85 N.D.P.S. Now I am going to hear him on the quantum of sentence." &0.    Fearned  trial  Eourt  has  totall+  ignored  the  !ontradi!tions  in  the e>amination of "itnessesJ that 3SP did not seal all the !ase propert+J that the propert+ "as sent to Ehemi!al E>aminer and there "as no tampering.  -urther the return of the samples from the Ehemi!al E>aminer in seal bearing English alphabet.

&1.    A perusal of the re!ord as referred to abo e sho"s that there is no homogeneous mi>ing of the popp+$hus:, "hi!h "ere )(( par!els sealed "ith his seal impressions 53S6. @(.    %here is no !omplian!e of Se!tion 2&4A7 of the /ar!oti! 3rugs and Ps+!hotropi! Substan!es A!t, )102.  Se!tion 2&4A7 of /3PS A!t is reprodu!ed as under:$ "52A.  D,s5"s(?  "*  se,>e!  #(r+"),+  !r7<s  (#!  5sD+B")r"5,+ s7;s)(#+es."" [(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.] 3(2) Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer"in"charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub"section (1) shall prepare an inventory of 3such [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, 3numbers or such other identifying particulars of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances] or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub" 3section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the [narcotic

drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of""(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the 4presence of such magistrate, photographs of [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub"section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, 5the photographs of [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub"section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence."

@).    After  perusing  the  "hole  re!ord  of  this  !ase,  this  Eourt  finds  the follo"ing dis!repan!ies8la!: of in estigation as per the statutor+ pro isions and la" laid do"n b+ this Eourt as "ell as b+ the Don6ble Supreme Eourt:$ i7  E>.PA is memo regarding produ!tion of !ase propert+ i.e. popp+ hus:, "hi!h is produ!ed b+ S. 3idar Singh 4PA'7 before the Spe!ial ,udge, "herein, it is stated that &(@ bags of stra"s "ere produ!ed before him.  S. 3idar Singh, "ho "as e>amined as PA', in his statement, stated that 2( bags of popp+ hus: "ere re!o ered from the tru!:, "hi!h "ere !on!ealed under the bags

of Khal.  All the said bags were weighed and their weight was 40 Kgs. each.  From every bag, two samples each of 250 grams were separated.  The said 100 samples were converted into parcels and they were sealed by him with his seal bearing impressions 'DS'. In  the  same  statement,  he  further  stated  that  50  bags  each containing 39.5 Kgs. of poppy husk were also sealed by him with his seal bearing impressions 'DS', whereas, HC Avtar Singh, who was examined as PW6, in his statement, stated that there were total 253 bags lying in the truck, which is contradictory.

ii)  A perusal of the record as referred to above shows that there is no homogeneous mixing of the poppy-husk, which was in 40 bag parcels.

iii)  There is no compliance of Section 52(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

iv)  A perusal of FSL report as referred to above does not reveal the number of seals and number of sample receipts and there is no return by chemical examiner by further sealing it with English alphabet.

v)  Further,  there  is  non-production  of  parcel  containing residue as separated from the bulk, at the crime site before the learned Trial Court along with FSL report. Since there are grave lapses in the prosecution case, therefore, the benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused/appellant.

FINAL ORDER

32.    In view of the above discussion this Court finds merit in the present appeal and is constrained to allow it.  Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. Impugned  judgment  and  order  of  sentence  dated  24.01.2006  convicting  and sentencing the appellant by learned trial Court are quashed/set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.  The fine amount, if any, deposited by him, be in accordance with law, refunded to him.  The personal and surety bonds of the accused shall stand forthwith cancelled and surety stands discharged.  The case property be dealt with in accordance with law, but after the expiry of period of limitation for filing of an appeal or revision if any and records of the learned trial Court be sent down forthwith.

33.    The appellant, if in custody, and, if not required in any other case, be forthwith set at liberty.  Release warrants be prepared accordingly.

34.    Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SURESHWR THAKUR)             (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE                        JUDGE

13.11.2024 adhikari Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRA-255-DB-2006 (O&M) Reserved on :-03.10.2024 Date of Decision : 13.11.2024 Pargat Singh ....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate, for Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, A.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State. -.-