Bharpur Navjot Singh @ Navjot Singh @ Neetu v. State of Punjab

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo CRAoS-3267-SB-2017o DateoofoDe !"!o#$1%&07&202' BharpuroNavjotoSingho@oNavjotoSingho@oNeetu ...Petitioner Versus StateoofoPunjabo oooooo...oRespondent CORA(o$ooooHON)B*Eo(R&oJUSTICEoN&S&SHE+HA,AT Presento: Mr.oMadhuroSingh,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner.o Mr.o eepinderoSinghoBrar,oSr.o A!,oPunjab.o oN&S&SHE+HA,AToo-oJ&o

¶1The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Special Court, Sangrur, whereby, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of theoNarcotico rugsoandoPs"chotropic SubstancesoAct,o#$%&o'foroshort,o)t.eoNDPSoA t)(oando)asosentenced tooundergoorigorousoi*prison*entoforoaoperiodoofoteno"earsoandoa+sooto pa"oaofineoofoRs.#,,,,,,,-.oa+ong)ithodefau+tostipu+ation.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2015, a police party headed by SI Pavitar Singh was present at the bridge of minor canal on the government vehicle at about 05.12 p.m., the appellant/accused was seen picking something from the heap of garbage. On seeing the police party, he got perplexed and stood up and was carrying a polythene in his right hand. He threw the CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -2-polythene on the heap of garbage and ran towards the fields. He was identified by HC Bhola Singh as Navjot Singh @ Neetu. The police party chased him, but he succeeded to run away. Thereafter, on search of polythene thrown by acused, 30 sealed vials of rexcof each containing 100 mls of Cilpa Company bearing batch No.CP4225, Manufactured in August-2014, Expiry July 2016 and 18 strips of carisoma each strip containing 10 tablets were recovered. Out of the recovered contraband, two samples i.e. one/one vial each and one/one strip each containing 10 tablets of carisoma were separated as sampls and converted into parcels. The remaining 28 vials of rexcof and 16 strips of Carisoma were converted into bulk parcel. All the parcels were sealed by Investigating Officer with his seal bearing impression "PS" and seal after use was handed over to HC Jagtar Singh. The entire case property was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of case and on its basis, formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared. Memos were also prepared.

¶3During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on 07.09.2015 and the statements of the various witnesses were recorded. The case property was sealed by putting the seal impression 'JS' and was deposited with MHC Jagroop Singh. On

01.09.2015, SI Pavitar Singh took the case property from MHC Jagroop Singh and produced the same before the CJM, Sangrur, who CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -3-conducted the proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, SI Pavitar Singh deposited the case property in judicial Malkhana. MHC Jagroop Singh, sent the sample parcel to FSL Mohali through Constable Ginder Singh. The report of chemical examiner was also received by the IO and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the Special Court. After presentation of challan, the Court found a prima-facie case against the appellant and he was charge sheeted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. He pleaded not guility to the charge and claimed trial.

¶4During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 SI/SHO Jatinderpal Singh, who was posted as SHO in Police Station City Sangrur. He has registered a formal FIR Ex.PW1/A on the basis of the rukka. SI Pavitar Singh produced the case property before him alongwith sample seal chit, sealed with the seal bearing impression 'PS' on the same day. He verified the facts of the case from the witnesses and also put his seal impression 'JS' on sample parcel and bulk parcel. The prosecution examined PW2 SI Pavitar Singh, who reiterated the version, as mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW1/A. He also proved various documents including recovery memo Ex. PA, ruqa Ex.PB, FIR Ex.PW1/A, rough site plan Ex.PC, special report Ex.PD, sample seal chit Ex.P1, Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PX, request to Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangrur Ex CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -%- PE, order of the Court Ex.PE/1,, photographs Ex.MO1 to Ex.MO7, sample seal chits Ex.P2 to Ex. P4, application Ex.PF, report of Malkhana Nazir Ex. PG, order of the Court Ex PG/1, arrest-cum-intimation memo Ex. PH, personal search memo of accused Ex. PJ, report of Drug Inspector Ex PY. He proved second sample parcels Ex. MO1 and Ex. MO2, sample parcels Ex. MO3 and Ex. M04. He further deposed that bulk parcel was destroyed as per order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur Ex.PZ on an application Ex. PZ/1. He also identified the accused present in the Court

¶5PW3 HC Jagroop Singh proved the link evidence in his deposition. PW4 HC Jagtar was a witness of recovery. Still further, PW5 Constable Ginder Singh carrier of the sample also supported the case of the prosecution and proved the link evidence in his deposition. The prosecution further examined PW6 HC Bhola Singh, who also corroborated the statement of the IO in the present case and the recovery witnesses on all the material points. He further stated that he had identified Navjot Singh @ Nitu on 31.08.2015 while he was fleeing from the spot. He again identified the present appellant, when he was appeared as an accused before the trial Court.

¶6After completion of the prosecution evidence, the entire prosecution case was put to the appellant in his statement under CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -'- Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, he denied the evidence against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶7Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case, the case was primarily based on the testimonies of official witnesses and no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery and the prosecution case cannot be believed. Still further, the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were not followed in the present case and in absence of compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court. Apart from that, there was delay of 04 days in sending the samples to the FSL, Mohali and this has raised a big question mark with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution. Still further, even, there was serious dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner. In fact, even HC Bhola Singh did not go with the police party at the time of effecting the arrest of the appellant and no other police officials knew him and, thus, the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and is liable to be disbelieved by this Court.

¶8On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that in the present case, the official witnesses had been searchingly cross-examined and their testimonies cannot be disbelived on the ground that at the time of recovery of contraband, CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -6-the private witnesses had not joined the search and seizure procedure. In fact, the appellant could not bring on record any material to show that the official witnesses were inmical towards him. Moreover, the examiantion of independent witnesses is a role of credence and not of necessity. The accused can always be convicted on the basis of the statements of the official witnesses, after the statements are found to be trustworthy and credible. Still further, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable as it was a case of chance recovery and was not based on any secret information. Even, the case property was kept sealed in the Malkhana and remained in safe custody. Consequently, the delay of 04 days in sending the samples to the FSL would not make any difference. Still further, the official witnesses had seen the appellant in the present case at the time of effecting the recovery and since he is a hardened criminal, other police officials, apart from HC Bhola Singh, also knew him and he was arrested in the present case. $. /ohaveoheardo+earnedocounse+oforotheopartiesoandoperused theorecord. #,. 0heofirstosub*issionoraisedoonobeha+foofotheoappe++antois thatodueotoonon.joiningotheoindependento)itnesesoduringotheosearch andosei1ure,otheoversionoofotheoprosecutionoiso+iab+eotoobeodisbe+ivedob" thiso2ourt.o3o)ever,o/odoonotoagreeo)ithotheosub*issionso*adeob"othe +earnedocounse+oforotheoappe++antoinothisoregard.oNoodoubt,otheo2ourts CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -7-alwaysoinsistedoforojoiningoofotheoindependentowitnessesoatotheotimeoof effectingotheorecoveryoandothisolendsocredenceotootheoentireoprocedure ofosearchoandoseizure.oHowever,oinocaseoanyosuchoevidenceohasonot beenoplacedoonorecord,oitodoesonotomeanothatotheoentireoprosecution caseohasotoobeodisbelived.oInotheopresentocase,otheoprosecutionohad examinedoPW2oSIoPavitaroSingh,oPW4oHCoJagtaroSinghooandoPW6oHC BholaoSingh,orecoveryowitensses.oEven,otheirotestimoniesoconclusively provedotheorecoveryofromotheopresentoappellantoandohadowithstoodothe testoofocross-examination.oThereoisonoomaterialotooshowothatothese witenssesowereoeitheroinmicalotowardsotheoappellantoorohadoignored someoprocedureoofolaworatherotheirotestimonyohasobeenofoundoreliable andotrustworthyoandosuchostatementsocannotobeodiscardedoonlyoonothe groundothatosameowereonotocorroboratedobyoanyoindependentowitness.o

¶11Stillofurther,oitohasobeenoarguedoonobehalfoofotheoappellant thatotheomandatoryoprocedureounderoSectiono42oofotheoNDPSoActowas notofollowedoinotheopresentocase.oHowever,oIofindoforceoinothe submissionsomadeobyotheolearnedoStateocounseloasoinotheopresentocase, theopoliceopartyowasoonopatrollingodutyoandoalloofoaosudden,otheyohad noticedotheopresentoappellant.oEven,otheoprosecutionohasonotosubmitted thatothereowasoanyosecretoinformationowithoregardotootheoactivityoofothe appellant.oHowever,otheopoliceoofficialsowereoonopatrollingodutyoand recovered otheocontrabando fromotheopresent oappellant.oThus,othe AMITgRANA 2025.07.15g17:51 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authenticitygofgthis CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -/- provisionsoofoSectiono76oofotheoN PSoActo)ou+dohaveonooapp+ication inotheofactsoandotheocircu*stancesoofotheopresentocase. #6. Moreover, o in o the o present o case, o the o prosecution o had e4p+ainedotheode+a"oinosendingotheosa*p+eoparce+sotoo;S<,oMoha+i.o/n fact,oafterorecover",otheocaseopropert"ore*ainedoinotheocustod"oofoP5= 32o8agroopoSingh.o o>no,#.,$.6,6#&,otheocaseopropert"o)asota?en fro*o32o8agroopoSinghoandotheosa*eo)asoproducedobeforeotheo2ourt ofo28M,oSangrur.otiheo28Moagainosea+edotheobu+?oparce+oandothe representative o sa*p+es o )ith o her o sea+ o i*pressions. o :ven, o the photographso)ereota?enoandotheosa*p+eo)asosub*ittedo)ithotheo;S<, )ithoutoan"ota*pering.otiheoprosecutionoe4a*inedosevera+o)itnesses toosho)othatoti++otheoti*eotheosa*p+eore*ainedoinotheiropossession,ono persono)asoa++o)edotoota*pero)ithotheosa*e.o oThus, the proper procedure has been followed by the officials and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are liable to be rejected. Still further, even the appellant is involved in several cases and was known to the raiding team. Even, HC Bhola Singh had identified him at the spot and the other officials knew the appellant. Thus, non-joining of HC Bhola Singh at the time of effecting the arrest of the appellant, would not have any adverse effect.

¶13Even otherwise, I have carefully gone through the trial Court record as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court and CRAoS-3267-SB-2017 oooo -0-find no irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Thus, the present appeal sans merits and it is ordered to be dismissed. #7. 0heocaseopropert",oifoan",o*a"obeodea+to)ithoasoperothe ru+esoafteroe4pir"oofoperiodoofo+i*itationoforofi+ingotheoappea+.

¶15Records of the Court below be sent back. 1%&07&202' oooooo1N&S&SHE+HA,AT2 a*itorana ooooooJUDGE 5hetheroreasoned-spea?ingoooo: @es-No oo5hetheroreportab+e ooooooooo:ooooooooooo@es-No