Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 1
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : July 30, 2008
Sat Pal Singh S/o Raja Ram, ...Appellant
R/o Village Moonak, District Sangrur.
Versus
The State of Punjab ....Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Harwinder Singh S/o Bant Singh, ...Appellant
R/o Village Moonak, District Sangrur.
Versus
The State of Punjab ....Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
Surjit Singh S/o Raj Singh, ...Appellant
R/o Village Moonak, District Sangrur.
Versus
The State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant, in Crl. Appeal No. 73-SB of 1998.
None for the appellant, in Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998.
Mr. A.S.Kalra, Advocate,
for the appellant, in Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998.
Mr. S.S.Bhullar, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent, in all the appeals.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.73-SB of 1998,
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 2
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
filed by Sat Pal Singh, Criminal Appeal No.87-SB of 1998, filed by Harwinder
Singh, and Criminal Appeal No.167-SB of 1998, filed by Surjit Singh, accused
(now appellants), arising out of the judgment of conviction, and the order of
sentence dated 16.1.1998, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge,
Sangrur, vide which it convicted Surjit Singh and Sat Pal Singh,
accused/appellants, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 and Harwinder
Singh, accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 25 of the
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the
Act’ only) and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period
of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment
of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two years
each.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 16.1.1996, Chanan Singh, ASI,
alongwith other police officials, was going to village Rampur, in connection
with patrol duty, and when the police reached, at a distance of half kilometer
from village Rampur, towards village Kundni, one Eicher Tractor, bearing
Registration No.PB-11-4451, came from the side of village Kundni. It was
signalled to stop. Surjit Singh, accused, was driving the Tractor, and Sat Pal
Singh, accused, was sitting, in the trolley. They tried to run away, but were
apprehended, on suspicion. The search of the Tractor-Trolley, was conducted,
in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof, four gunny bags,
containing poppy-husk were recovered. Three gunny bags were found
containing 34 Kgs. 500 grams poppy-husk each, whereas, the fourth gunny bag
was found containing 15 Kgs. Poppy-husk Two samples of 250 grams were
taken out, of each bag, and the remaining poppy-husk, was put into the same
bags. The samples, and the bags, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were
converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seals, and taken into possession,
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 3
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
vide a separate recovery memo, alongwith the Tractor Trolley. Ruqa was sent
to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. Rough
site plan of the place of recovery, with correct marginal notes, was prepared.
The accused were arrested. On 2.2.1996, Harwinder Singh, accused, owner of
the Tractor Trolley, aforesaid, was arrested. After the completion of
investigation, the accused were challaned.
3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon
by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of
the Act, was framed against Surjit Singh and Sat Pal Singh, and charge under
Section 25 of the Act, was framed against Harwinder Singh, accused, to which
they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Gurmail Singh, HC
(PW-1), Chanan Singh, ASI (PW-2), Ram Parkash, Inspector (PW-3), Karnail
Singh, Constable (PW-4), Surinder Kumar, MHC (PW-5), and Gurdial Singh,
(PW-6). Thereafter, the Addl. P.P. for the State, closed the prosecution
evidence.
5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were
recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing
against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication.
6. It was stated by Surjit Singh, accused, in his statement, recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that there the Sarpanch of Surjan Bhaini, was
murdered, his co-accused Sat Pal was arrested, in that case, who was produced
by the Sarpanch of Village Fatehpur, and at that time Mohinder Singh, Ex-
Sarpanch, Balran, Harnek Singh, Sarpanch of Gehlan, and Major Singh were
present. He further stated that Major Singh was also in police custody. He
further stated that Sat Pal was a servant of Major Singh, while he was a servant
of Kundan Singh, Moonak Wala. He further stated that he had a dispute with
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 4
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
him, and, thus, was falsely implicated, in the instant case, at the instance of
Kundan Singh.
7. Sat Pal, accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., also took up the same plea.
8. Harwinder Singh, accused, in his statement, recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. stated that affidavit dated 16.11.1995 had been procured by Chanan
Singh, ASI, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. He further stated that
in fact, the Tractor was purchased by him, from Gurdial Singh etc. on
22.1.1996, and, thereafter, he had obtained it on sapurdari, from the Court at
Sunam. He further stated that the Tractor involved, in this case, was
transferred, in his name on 11.12.1996.
9. The accused, however, examined Boria Singh (DW-1), Dharminder
Singh (DW-2), and Mohinder Singh (DW-3), in their defence. Thereafter, they
closed their defence evidence.
10. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel
for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court,
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as stated hereinbefore.
11. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order
of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeals, were filed by the
accused/appellants.
12. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Deepak Garg,
Advocate, came present, in Criminal Appeal No.87-SB of 1998, and submitted
that earlier he was the Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, in this appeal, but
later on, the appellant took away the brief, from his office. Since, the appellant
was released on bail, in this case, and also engaged Counsel, though he took
away the brief from him, it could be said that he had a due notice, regarding the
fixation of appeal, for final hearing. Under these circumstances, no alternative
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 5
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
was left with the Court, than to peruse the record, the evidence, judgment of the
trial Court, hear the Counsel for the appellants, in two other appeals, as well as
the Counsel for the respondent, and decide the appeal, on merits, as per the ratio
of law, laid down, in Dharampal Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC)
225.
13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, in Criminal
Appeals No.73-SB of 1998 and 167-SB of 1998, the Counsel for the
respondent, in all the appeals, and have gone through the evidence and record,
of the case, carefully.
14. The Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal, appellants, at the very
outset, contended that the prosecution failed to prove the conscious possession
of these appellants, in respect of poppy-husk, referred to above. They further
submitted that the mere fact that one of them, was allegedly driving the Tractor-
Trolley, and the other was allegedly sitting therein, did not mean that they were
in conscious possession of the contraband. It may be stated here that, as many
as, four bags, out of which three containing 34 Kgs. and 500 grams poppy-husk
each, and the fourth bag containing 15 Kgs. 500 grams poppy-husk, were lying
in the tractor trolley. It was a big quantity of poppy-husk, which was being
carried in the tractory-trolley. It, therefore, could not be said that Surjit Singh,
driver of the same, and Sat Pal, who was sitting in the trolley, were not aware of
the existence of bags, containing poppy-husk, in the said tractor- trolley. They
were having special means of knowledge, as to how, and, under what
circumstances, these bags containing poppy-husk, were lying in the trolley.
They were, thus, found in possession of the bags, containing poppy-husk. Once
the possession of the accused, and their control over the contraband was proved,
then statutory presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, operated
against them, that they were in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, it was
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 6
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
for them, to rebut the statutory presumption, by leading cogent and convincing
evidence. However, the appellants failed to rebut that presumption, either
during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by
leading defence evidence. In these circumstances, the trial Court was right, in
holding that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 54 of
the Act ibid reads as under :-
“Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In trials
under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the
contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an
offence under this Act, in respect of:-
a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or
controlled substance;
b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant
growing on any land which he has cultivated;
c) any apparatus specially designed or any group
of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controller
substance; or
d) any materials which have undergone any
process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any
residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug
or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has
been manufactured,
for the possession of which he fails to account
satisfactorily.”
14-A. Section 35 which relates to the presumption of culpable mental state,
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 7
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
is extracted as under :-
“Presumption of culpable mental state:- (1) In any
prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires
a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall
presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be
a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no
such mental state with respect to the act charged as an
offence in that prosecution.
Explanation:- In this section “culpable mental state”
includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief
in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be
proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a
reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is
established by a preponderance of probability.”
14-B. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 54 and 35,
referred to hereinbefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that once an accused, is
found to be in possession of a contraband, he is presumed to have committed
the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act, until the contrary is
proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid, the Court shall presume the
existence of mental state, for the commission of an offence, and it is for the
accused to prove otherwise. In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P.
2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:-
The word “conscious” means awareness about a
particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or
intended.
Once possession is established, the person who
claims that it was not a conscious possession has to
establish it, because how he came to be in possession is
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 8
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a
statutory recognition of this position because of the
presumption available in law. Similar is the position in
terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to
be drawn from possession of illicit articles.”
15. The facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra) in brief, were that accused
Manjit Singh was driving the Car, and the remaining four accused, were sitting
therein. One steel container (dolu) in a black coloured bag, was recovered from
the said Car, which contained 820 gms. charas. All the accused were convicted
and sentenced by the trial Court, holding that they were found in conscious
possession of charas, despite the fact, that one of the accused, admitted his
conscious possession, of the contraband. The Apex Court held that the trial
Court was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in
conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain, as to how they
were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex
Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In the instant
case, the accused failed to explain, as to how, four bags, containing poppy-husk
were found in the tractor trolley, which was being driven by one of them. The
facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra) are similar and identical to the facts of the
present case. The principle of law, laid down, in Madan Lal’s case (supra) is
fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, in their
statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellants took up the plea,
only of false implication. As stated above, the accused, thus, miserably failed to
rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above. Thus, their conscious
possession, in respect of the contraband, was proved, and, as such, the
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and
the same stands rejected.
16. The Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal, appellants, however,
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 9
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
placed reliance on Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR (Criminal)
300 (D.B.) (P&H), and Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(1) PLR 425
(F.B.) (P&H), to contend that the conscious possession of poppy-husk, lying in
the tractor trolley, in respect of these accused, was not proved. It may be stated
here that, in both these cases, Madan Lal’s case (supra), decided by the Apex
Court, was not adverted to. The facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra), as stated
above, are completely identical to the facts, of the instant case. It was for the
accused to explain, as to how, they were found travelling in the same tractor
trolley, in which, four bags, containing poppy-husk, were lying. Sat Pal,
accused/appellant did not take up the plea that he was merely a passenger, and
took lift for going to a particular place. He also did not take up the plea, that he
was merely a labourer, engaged for loading and unloading the bags, and, as
such, was not in conscious possession of the poppy-husk. Surjit Singh, driver,
of the Tractor trolley also did not take up the plea, that he was merely driving
the same, on the directions of the owner, namely Harwinder Singh,
accused/appellant. He also did not take up the plea, that the bags, containing
poppy-husk, actually belonged to Harwinder Singh, accused/appellant, on
whose directions, he was carrying the same, and he did not know, as to what
was contained therein. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in Madan
Lal’s case (supra), decided by the Apex Court, the principle of law, laid down,
to the contrary in Tarsem Singh’s and Mohan Singh’s cases (supra), decided
by this Court, shall not hold the field. In this view of the matter, the submission
of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same
stands rejected.
17. It was next submitted by the Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal,
appellants, that no independent witness, was joined, despite availability, and, as
such, the case of the prosecution, became doubtful. It may be stated here, that it
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 10
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
was a chance recovery. No secret information had been received, against the
accused, that they were bringing poppy-husk, in the tractor trolley. There is
nothing, on the record, that at the time of recovery, any independent witness,
was available, at the spot, but was not deliberately joined. It was, under these
circumstances, that no independent witness, could be joined. It is settled
principle of law, that the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be distrusted
and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. Their evidence, is as
good, as that of any other independent witness. In the face of the evidence of
the official witnesses only, the Court is required to scrutinize the same, carefully
and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the
conclusion, that the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity, the same
can be believed. The evidence of the official witnesses, in the instant case, has
been subjected to indepth scrutiny, and nothing came to the fore, which may go
to discredit the same. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297
(S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled that the evidence of search or
seizure, made by the police, will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that
the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of
Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000)I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:-
“It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer, should
be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing
at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the
Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption
that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of
law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official
acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise
principle of presumption and recognized even by the
Legislature.”
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 11
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
17-A. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it
was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an
independent witness had not been examined, by the prosecution. It was further
held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are generally insensitive,
when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the
victims’ side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away
from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a
civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves, in it.
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable
to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non-joining of an
independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has been
held to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no
reason, on their part to falsely implicate the accused, no doubt, is cast on the
prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for
the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18. It was next submitted by the Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal,
appellants, that the link evidence was missing. They further submitted that
according to Chanan Singh, ASI (PW-2), the Investigating Officer, the SHO
deposited the case property, and the sample parcels, with the MHC, whereas,
Ram Parkash, Inspector (PW-3), stated that it was Chanan Singh, ASI, who
deposited the case property with the MHC. Surinder Kumar, MHC, however,
stated that it was Chanan Singh, ASI, who deposited the case property, with
him. He further stated that Chanan Singh, ASI, produced the case property,
sample parcels, and the accused, before the SHO. He further stated that the
SHO verified the same. Chanan Singh was also posted in the same Police
Station, in which the SHO was posted. The case property, apparently was
deposited by Chanan Singh, ASI, in the presence of the SHO, with the MHC. It
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 12
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
was, under these circumstances, that such a discrepancy occurred. However,
this discrepancy did not, in any way, prove the non-completion of the link
evidence, as there is sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution, to the
effect, that none tampered with the sample parcels, till the same reached the
office of the Chemical Examiner. The link evidence was, therefore, complete.
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must
fail, and the same stands rejected.
19. The next limb of the argument of the Counsel for the appellants, that
the link evidence was incomplete, was to the effect, that the seals remained with
the subordinate officials, after use, and, as such, the chances of tampering with
the case property could not be ruled out. They placed reliance on State of
Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh @ Bania 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)1040, in this
regard. The mere fact that the seals were handed over to the subordinate
officials, could not be said to be sufficient, to entertain a doubt, that the sample
parcels were tampered with, at any stage. The evidence produced by the
prosecution, in this case, is cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. From
the evidence, it was proved, that none tampered with the sample parcels, till the
same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. Above all, there is report
of the Chemical Examiner, to the effect, that the seals, on the exhibits, were
intact, on arrival, and agreed with the specimen seals sent. The link evidence,
was, therefore, complete. In Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1982 C.L.R.
(2) 447, a case decided by a Full Bench of this Court, the seal affixed on the
sample of illicit liquor, recovered from the accused, was not entrusted to an
independent person forthwith. Similarly, the independent person, though
entrusted with the seal, by the Investigating Officer, later on, was not produced
as a witness. In these circumstances, it was held that this fact alone, was not
sufficient to affect the merits of the trial, and the prosecution case, could not be
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 13
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
thrown out, on that score alone. It was further held, in this case, that it was not
incumbent upon the Police Officer, to hand over the seal, to a third person
forthwith, and even, in cases, where he had done so, it was not obligatory for
him, to produce such person, as a witness, during trial, as there was no statutory
requirement, whatsoever, to this effect. The principle of law, laid down, in the
aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view
of the principle of law, laid down, in Piara Singh’s case (supra), decided by a
Full Bench of this Court, the principle of law, laid down in State of Punjab’s
case (supra), decided by a Division Bench, on the same point, to the contrary,
shall not hold the field. No help, therefore, from State of Punjab’s case
(supra), can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellants. Non-entrustment of
seal to an independent witness, by the Investigating Officer, as none could be
joined, in view of the cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy evidence,
produced by the prosecution, regarding the completion of link evidence, did not
at all affect the merits of the case. In this view of the matter, the finding of the
trial Court, is endorsed.
20. Now coming to the appeal of Harwinder Singh, appellant, it may be
stated here, that one of the grounds, taken up by him, in the grounds of appeal,
was that he was not the owner of the tractor-trolley, on the date, when the
alleged recovery was effected, and, as such, could not be held guilty for the
offence, punishable under Section 25 of the Act. It may be stated here, that this
ground taken up in the grounds of appeal, by this appellant, does not appear to
be correct. Gurdial Singh (PW-6), was the earlier joint owner of the tractor,
with Balwinder Singh. It was stated by him, that they had sold the tractor to
Harwinder Singh S/o Bant Singh R/o Moonak, and gave affidavit, Ex.PK. This
affidavit is dated 16.11.1995. In relation to the sale of movable property, the
element of receipt of consideration, by the vendor, and delivery of possession of
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 14
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
the property, to the vendee, is sufficient to complete the sale. The affidavit
dated 16.11.1995, clearly proved that the tractor-trolley, was sold to Harwinder
Singh by Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh, who were the joint owner thereof
earlier. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statement of Gurdial
Singh (PW-6), and the affidavit, Ex.PK, dated 16.11.1995, in this regard. The
recovery, in this case, was effected on 16.1.1996. It means that Harwinder
Singh, accused, was the owner of the tractor-trolley, much earlier to the date of
recovery. This ground, therefore, does not hold good, and stands rejected.
21. The next ground taken up, by Harwinder Singh, appellant, in the
memorandum of appeal, was to the effect, that the prosecution miserably failed
to prove that he knowingly permitted the use of the Tractor trolley for
transporting poppy-husk, and, as such, he did not commit any offence,
punishable under Section 25 of the Act. It is not that the prosecution is required
to produce only the direct evidence, to the effect, that the owner knowingly
permitted the use of the vehicle for transporting the contraband. From the
circumstancial evidence also, such an inference can be drawn, by the Court. It
may be stated here, that Harwinder Singh, himself took the Tractor on sapurdari,
on the basis of the affidavit Ex.PK, dated 16.11.1995. When Harwinder Singh,
was the owner of the tractor, it was for him, to explain, as to under what
circumstances it came into the possession of Sat Pal and Surjit Singh, accused.
There is no doucment, on the record, that Sat Pal and Surjit Singh, accused, had
taken tractor, on payment, of hire charges, and, as such, Harwinder Singh, did
not know as to whethere the tractor, in question, was being used for transporting
the contraband. The provisions of Section 35 of the Act, relating to the
presumption of culpable mental state of the accused, have been extracted
above. The culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a
fact, and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. It is evident, from the provisions
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 15
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
of Section 35 that, in any prosecution, for an offence, under this Act, which
requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the
existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove
the fact that he had no such mental state, with respect to the act, charged, as an
offence, in that prosecution. Once the offence was committed under the Act,
for being found in conscious possession of the contraband, referred to above, by
Sat Pal and Surjit Singh, accused, culpable mental state of Harwinder Singh,
accused, stood proved, that he knowingly permitted the use of the tractor trolley
by both these accused, for carrying the contraband. No evidence, whatsoever,
was led by him, to rebut this statutory presumption, that, in fact, the tractor
trolley was being used for carrying the contraband, without his knowledge, or
that he did not permit the use thereof, for this purpose. This ground, therefore,
does not hold good, and the same stand rejected.
22. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
23. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on
the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not
warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.
24. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, all the three appeals, referred
to hereinbefore, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of
sentence dated 16.1.1998, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail
bonds, shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, shall take
necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in
view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Compliance report be sent within two months.
25. It is evident, from the judgment of the trial Court, that it ordered that
separate proceedings, regarding the confiscation of tractor-trolley be started.
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 16
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998
The trial Court is directed to complete the same, if already not completed, and
send compliance report, within three months, that the tractor-trolley has actually
been confiscated, subject, however, to the happening of any supervening events.
July 30, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE