IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No. 125-MA of 2009
Dated of Decision:- March 23, 2009
State of Haryana ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
Gurvinder and another ....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mrs Ritu Punj, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
------
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
State has filed an appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against
the judgment dated 1.12.2008 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar,
whereby he acquitted Gurvinder son of Pritam Singh and Bhola Singh son
of Pritam Singh of the charge framed against them.
The case of the prosecution is that on 25.7.2007 at about 8.30
p.m. ASI Jagmal Singh along the police party reached Sisaipul Hansi for
checking of the vehicles. A car bearing No. UP-07K-2025 make Opel was
spotted coming from the opposite side of Char Kutub Gate, Hansi. It was
stopped. The driver disclosed his name Gurwinder Singh son of Pritam
Singh and the person sitting with him disclosed his name as Bhola Singh
son of Pritam Singh. The vehicle was searched and two plastic bags from
2
Criminal Misc.No. 125-MA of 2009
the rear seat and one from dickey were found. Two samples of 100 gram
each were taken from each bag and thereafter each bag weighed 31 Kg. 800
gms. FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation, challan was
presented.
The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box,
Suresh Kumar HC PW1, Raghbir Singh retired SI PW2, Jai Bhagwan HC
PW3, Inder Singh Inspector PW4, EASI Shish Ram PW5, Constable
Virender PW6 and SI Jagmal Singh PW7.
Learned counsel for the State has argued, that seven witnesses
were produced by the prosecution in the trial Court and the case of the
prosecution was proved by these witnesses. 96 Kg of chura post was kept
consciously in the possession of the respondents without a permit. These
witnesses have corroborated each. An offence under Section 15 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is made out against
the respondents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused
the impugned judgment.
The place of occurrence was a thorough fare, but no
independent witness was joined, nor any explanation coming from the side
of the Investigating Officer as to why efforts were not made to join an
independent witness. Shish Ram EASI PW5 to whom allegedly the case
property was deposited with by the Investigating officer, has stated that the
case property was deposited at 5.00/6.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer
Jagmal Singh SI PW7 has stated, that the respondents were arrested at 8.30
p.m. on 25.7.2007 and the police came at the police station at 10.00/11.00
p.m. There is contradiction in the timings, when the case property was
3
Criminal Misc.No. 125-MA of 2009
deposited. The link evidence is totally missing and there is ample
opportunity of tampering with the case property. Shish Ram PW5 has
stated, that the samples were sent back by the Forensic Science Laboratory
with an objection that the seals were broken. Seals were again affixed and
thereafter samples were sent to the FSL. There is delay of 25 days in
sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned
trial Court.
Dismissed.
(MEHTAB S.GILL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
March 23, 2009 JUDGE
SKArora