{"id":101614,"date":"2008-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-30T01:30:52","modified_gmt":"2016-07-29T20:00:52","slug":"jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                    1\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                           CHANDIGARH\n\n                                            Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999\n                                            Date of Decision : 8.9.2008\n\nJaggu Singh S\/o Nazir Singh,                          ....Appellant\nresident of Ghanauri Kalan,\nP.S.Sherpur.\n\n\n                                 Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab                                   ....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\n            1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to\n            see the judgment?\n            2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n            3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPresent:    Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate,\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr. S.S.Bhullar, DAG, Punjab,\n            for the respondent.\n\nSHAM SUNDER, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the<\/p>\n
order of sentence dated 9.3.1999, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Sangrur, vide which it convicted the accused\/appellant, for the offence,<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances<\/p>\n
Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac,<\/p>\n
and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
another period of one year, for having been found in possession of four bags,<\/p>\n
each containing 35 Kgs. Poppy-husk, without any permit or licence.<\/p>\n
2.          The facts, in brief, are that, on 12.5.1993, Sukhdev Singh, ASI,
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
alongwith other police officials, was going from village Jharon to village<\/p>\n
Longowal, on a metalled road, in connection with patrol duty, and when the<\/p>\n
police party reached the metalled road of village Longowal, Mithu Singh,<\/p>\n
independent witness, met it, who was joined.        Thereafter, the police party<\/p>\n
started towards village Longowal.         When the police party reached near a<\/p>\n
deserted brick-kiln, in the area of Jharon, Jaggu Singh, accused, was seen sitting<\/p>\n
on four bags, lying in that brick-kiln, who was apprehended. On search of the<\/p>\n
bags, in accordance with the provisions of law, each gunny bag was found<\/p>\n
containing 35 Kgs. Poppy-husk. Two samples of 250 grams, from each of the<\/p>\n
bags, were taken out, and the remaining poppy-husk, was kept in the same bags.<\/p>\n
The samples, and the bags, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were<\/p>\n
converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate<\/p>\n
recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof,<\/p>\n
formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, was<\/p>\n
prepared. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the<\/p>\n
accused was challaned.\n<\/p>\n
3.         On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied<\/p>\n
upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section<\/p>\n
15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and<\/p>\n
claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.         The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sukhdev Singh,<\/p>\n
ASI (PW-1), the Investigating Officer, Ranjit Singh, SI, (PW-2), Mela Singh,<\/p>\n
Constable (PW-3), Nirmal Singh, HC (PW-4), Gurdev Singh, SI (PW-5), and<\/p>\n
Karanjit Singh, HC (PW-6). Thereafter, the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the<\/p>\n
State, closed the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.         The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was<\/p>\n
recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against<\/p>\n
him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
him, that he was taken away by the police, in connection with some alleged theft<\/p>\n
and later on, was falsely implicated, in this case. He, however, examined Ajit<\/p>\n
Singh, HC (DW-1), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence.<\/p>\n
6.         After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court,<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.<\/p>\n
7.         Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order<\/p>\n
of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.         I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone<\/p>\n
through the evidence and record, of the case, carefully.\n<\/p>\n
9.         The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that<\/p>\n
though Mithu Singh, independent witness, was joined, yet he was not examined<\/p>\n
by the prosecution, as a result whereof, it could be said that the prosecution<\/p>\n
withheld the best evidence, in its possession. He further submitted that, an<\/p>\n
adverse inference could be drawn, that had he been examined, he would not<\/p>\n
have supported its case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this<\/p>\n
regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, Mithu Singh, independent<\/p>\n
witness, was joined, by the Investigating Officer, at the time of effecting the<\/p>\n
recovery, yet he joined hands with the accused, during the trial of the case, and,<\/p>\n
as such, was given up as won over by the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the Addl. Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor for the State, took a wise decision in giving up, such a witness, as he<\/p>\n
very well knew that, in case, he was examined, he would damage the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. In Masalti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 (S.C.) 202, it<\/p>\n
was held that it is, undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution to lay before the<\/p>\n
Court, all material witnesses, available to it, whose evidence is necessary for<\/p>\n
unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to lay down it, as a general rule, that
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
every witness, must be examined, even though his evidence, may not be very<\/p>\n
material or, even if, it is known that he has been won over or terrorized. In<\/p>\n
Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) RCR 146, a Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court, held that no adverse inference can be drawn, when the only independent<\/p>\n
witness, was given up by the prosecution, as won over by the accused. It was<\/p>\n
further held, in the said authority, that the panch witnesses, being human beings,<\/p>\n
are quite exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating,<\/p>\n
threats and inducements and giving up of the public witnesses, as won over, is<\/p>\n
fully justified, in the present day situation prevailing in the society. In Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 Criminal Law Journal, 1218 (DB), it was held<\/p>\n
that where the independent witness was won over by the accused, and only the<\/p>\n
officials witnesses were examined, who were considered to be not interested<\/p>\n
persons, their evidence cannot be doubted, on the ground of their official status.<\/p>\n
The principle of law, laid down, in the said authorities, is fully applicable to the<\/p>\n
facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the trial Court was, thus,<\/p>\n
right in recording conviction and awarding sentence, to the accused.           The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and<\/p>\n
the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
10.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant,that though<\/p>\n
the recovery was effected after sunset and before sunrise, yet the mandatory<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were not complied with. It may be stated<\/p>\n
here that there was no secret information, in this case. The recovery, in this<\/p>\n
case, was effected per chance, when the accused was found sitting on 4 bags,<\/p>\n
each containing 35 Kgs. poppy-husk, in a deserted brick kiln. Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were not at all applicable<\/p>\n
to the instant case. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 43 of the Act,<\/p>\n
were applicable to the instant case. With a view to properly deal with this plea,<\/p>\n
it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
Act, which read as under :-\n<\/p>\n
              “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant<\/p>\n
              or authorization – (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior<\/p>\n
              in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of<\/p>\n
              central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue, intelligence or any<\/p>\n
              other department of the Central Government or of the Border<\/p>\n
              Security Force as is empowered in this behalf by general or<\/p>\n
              special order by the Central Government or any such officer<\/p>\n
              (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable)<\/p>\n
              of the revenue, drugs control, excise, olice or any other<\/p>\n
              department of a State Government, if he has reasons to believe<\/p>\n
              from personal knowledge or information given by any person<\/p>\n
              and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or<\/p>\n
              psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence<\/p>\n
              punishable under Chapter IV has been committed or any<\/p>\n
              document or other article which may furnish evidence of the<\/p>\n
              commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building,<\/p>\n
              conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                              (a)       enter into an search any such building,<\/p>\n
                              conveyance or place;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              (b)       in case of resistance, break open any<\/p>\n
                              door and remove any which any obstacle to such<\/p>\n
                              entry;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              (c)       seize such drug or substance and all<\/p>\n
                              materials used in the manufacture thereof and any<\/p>\n
                              other article and any animal or conveyance which<\/p>\n
                              has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation<\/p>\n
                              under this Act and any document or other article
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
                           which he has reason to believe may furnish<\/p>\n
                           evidence of the commission of offence under<\/p>\n
                           Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance :<\/p>\n
                           and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           (d)          detain and search, and, if he thinks<\/p>\n
                           proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to<\/p>\n
                           believe to have committed any offence punishable<\/p>\n
                           under Chapter IV relating to such drug or<\/p>\n
                           substance:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that<\/p>\n
             a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without<\/p>\n
             affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility<\/p>\n
             for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such<\/p>\n
             building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between<\/p>\n
             sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (2)        Where an offence takes down any information in<\/p>\n
             writing under sub-Section (1) or records grounds for his belief<\/p>\n
             under the proviso thereto he shall forthwith send a copy thereof<\/p>\n
             to his immediate official superior.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “43.       Power of seizure and arrest in public place. — Any<\/p>\n
             officer of any of the department mentioned in Section 42 may —<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                          (a)        seize, in any public place or in transit,<\/p>\n
                          any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in<\/p>\n
                          respect of which he has reason to believe an<\/p>\n
                          offence punishable under Chapter IV has been<\/p>\n
                          committed, and, along with such drug or substance,<\/p>\n
                          any animal or conveyance article liable to<\/p>\n
                          confiscation under this Act and any document or
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
                             other article which he has reason to believe may<\/p>\n
                             furnish evidence of the commission of an offence<\/p>\n
                             punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug<\/p>\n
                             or substance;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             (b)        detain and search any person whom he<\/p>\n
                             has reason to believe to have committed an offence<\/p>\n
                             punishable under Chapter IV, and if such person<\/p>\n
                             has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in<\/p>\n
                             his possession and such possession appears to him<\/p>\n
                             to be useful, arrest him and any other person in his<\/p>\n
                             company.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10-A.      A conjoint reading of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, shows that these<\/p>\n
sections are independent of each other. Section 43 authorises any Officer of the<\/p>\n
departments, mentioned in Section 42, for search, seizure, arrest and detention<\/p>\n
in any public place, or in transit, in respect of any narcotic drug or psychotropic<\/p>\n
substance, in respect of which, he has reason to believe that an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Chapter IV has been committed, whereas, Section 42 of the<\/p>\n
Act empowers the Officer for search, seizure and arrest in a building,<\/p>\n
conveyance or enclosed place.        When the information is with regard to<\/p>\n
concealment of some narcotic, in a vehicle, in transit, then the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 43 of the Act are applicable.        The word ‘public place’ has been<\/p>\n
explained for the purpose of Section 43 of the Act, which includes any public<\/p>\n
conveyance, hotel, shop or other places intended for use or accessible to the<\/p>\n
public.\n<\/p>\n
10-B.      A Division Bench of this Court in Dharminder Kumar Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Punjab, 2002(4) RCR (Crl.)278 has held as under :-\n<\/p>\n
             “Thus it is evident that if seizure is made from any animal,<\/p>\n
             conveyance or article in a public place or in transit then
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
             Section43 of the Act would be applicable. Section 43 and Section<\/p>\n
             42 of the Act operate in different spheres. Since the conveyance<\/p>\n
             has been specifically included in Section 43 of the Act also,<\/p>\n
             therefore, the conveyance which is found in a public place or in<\/p>\n
             transit would be covered under the provisions of Section 43 of the<\/p>\n
             Act whereas conveyance used in Section 42 of the Act has to be<\/p>\n
             read as conveyance which is other than a public place. This<\/p>\n
             interpretation is the only harmonious interpretation of Sections 42<\/p>\n
             and 43 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10-C.      It is well settled principle of law, that the provisions of a Statute, are<\/p>\n
to be construed, in harmonious manner, so that none of the same is rendered<\/p>\n
nugatory. By harmonious construing the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of<\/p>\n
the Act, it can be safely concluded, that if a conveyance is intercepted or<\/p>\n
apprehended at a public place, or in transit, then the provisions of Section 42 of<\/p>\n
the Act, would not be applicable.\n<\/p>\n
10-D.      It was held in State of Haryana Vs. Jarnail Singh and others 2004<\/p>\n
(2) RCR (Crl.) 960 (SC) as under :-\n<\/p>\n
             “7. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides that any officer of any of<\/p>\n
             the departments mentioned in Section 42 may seize in any public<\/p>\n
             place or in transit any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance<\/p>\n
             etc. in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence<\/p>\n
             punishable under the Act has been committed.               He is also<\/p>\n
             authorized to detain and search any person whom he has reason<\/p>\n
             to believe to have committed an offence punishable under the Act.<\/p>\n
             Explanation to Section 43 lays down that for the purposes of this<\/p>\n
             section, the expression “public place” includes any public<\/p>\n
             conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or<\/p>\n
             accessible to the public.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
              8.   Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two difference<\/p>\n
              situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any<\/p>\n
              building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43<\/p>\n
              contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If<\/p>\n
              seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the<\/p>\n
              requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There<\/p>\n
              is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is<\/p>\n
              obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place,<\/p>\n
              the officer making the search is not required to record his<\/p>\n
              satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the<\/p>\n
              NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the<\/p>\n
              sunrise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.        In the instant case, Sukhdev Singh, ASI, alongwith other police<\/p>\n
officials, was on patrol duty, from village Jharon to village Longowal, on<\/p>\n
metalled road, when the appellant was found sitting on 4 bags, containing<\/p>\n
poppy-husk, at a public place. The recovery was, thus, effected from a public<\/p>\n
place. Thus, the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, were applicable, and not<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 42 of the Act.     In this view of the matter, the trial<\/p>\n
Court was right in holding that the question of compliance with the provisions<\/p>\n
of Section 42, did not at all arise, as the same were inapplicable. The trial Court<\/p>\n
was, thus, right in recording conviction, and awarding sentence, to the accused.<\/p>\n
12.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the seal<\/p>\n
after use, was not handed over to the independent witness, but to a Head<\/p>\n
Constable, and, as such, the possibility of tampering with the sample parcels,<\/p>\n
until the same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner, could not be ruled<\/p>\n
out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not<\/p>\n
appear to be correct. It may be stated here that, under these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
Court is required to take into consideration the entire evidence, as also the facts
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case, to come to the conclusion, as to whether, any<\/p>\n
prejudice was caused to the accused, on account of non-handing over the seal<\/p>\n
used by the Police officials, for sealing the material, recovered from him, to an<\/p>\n
independent witness. If after over-all consideration of the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances, and evidence, on record, the Court comes to the conclusion, that<\/p>\n
on account of this reason, no prejudice was caused to the accused, then<\/p>\n
certainly, it could not be said that the case of the prosecution became doubtful.<\/p>\n
Even, otherwise, there is evidence, in abundance, in the shape of the statements<\/p>\n
of prosecution witnesses, that none tampered with the case property, and the<\/p>\n
samples, till the same (samples) were deposited in the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner.    When from the cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy<\/p>\n
evidence, it was proved that none tampered with the sample parcels, and the<\/p>\n
case property throughout, then the Court cannot act on conjectures and surmises<\/p>\n
or mere far-fetched possibilities, that the sample parcels, might have been<\/p>\n
tampered with. In Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1982 C.L.R. (2) 447, a<\/p>\n
case decided by a Full Bench of this Court, the seal, on the sample of illicit<\/p>\n
liquor recovered from the accused, was not entrusted to an independent person<\/p>\n
forthwith. Similarly, the independent person, though entrusted with the seal, by<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer, was not produced as a witness.                In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, it was held that this fact alone, was not sufficient to affect the<\/p>\n
merits of the case, and the prosecution case could not be thrown out, on that<\/p>\n
score alone. It was further held, in this case, that it was not incumbent upon the<\/p>\n
Police Officer, to hand over the seal to a third person forthwith, and even, in<\/p>\n
cases, where he had done so, it was not obligatory for him, to produce such<\/p>\n
person, as a witness, during trial, as there was no statutory requirement,<\/p>\n
whatsoever, to this effect. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Non-entrustment of<\/p>\n
seal to an independent witness, in view of the cogent, convincing, reliable, and
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
trustworthy evidence, produced by the prosecution, regarding the completion of<\/p>\n
link evidence, did not at all affect the merits of the case. In this view of the<\/p>\n
matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit,<\/p>\n
must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
13.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the<\/p>\n
mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were violated by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, at the time of the alleged search and seizure. He further<\/p>\n
submitted that, on account of this reason, the very investigation, and the<\/p>\n
subsequent trial, stood vitiated.    The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In the instant case, the<\/p>\n
search was not effected from the person of the accused, but from the bags, on<\/p>\n
which he was sitting. Had the recovery been effected from the person of the<\/p>\n
accused, then the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, would have been attracted<\/p>\n
to the instant case. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, 1999(6) S.C.C. 172, a<\/p>\n
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, settled beyond doubt, that the language<\/p>\n
of Section 50, was implicitly clear that the search had to be, in relation to a<\/p>\n
person, and not in relation to the premises, vehicles, or articles. Similar view<\/p>\n
was taken in Smt. Krishna Kanwar Thakuraeen Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT<\/p>\n
2004(1) S.C. 597. In these circumstances, it can be said that the consistent, and<\/p>\n
particularly the view of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, appears to be<\/p>\n
that the search, must relate to the person, and not vehicles, other luggage and<\/p>\n
articles, and then alone the provisions of Section 50 would be attracted. Since,<\/p>\n
in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 50 were not applicable, to the search, in the instant case,<\/p>\n
the trial Court was right in recording conviction and awarding sentence, to the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
14.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the<\/p>\n
appellant was not found in conscious possession of 4 bags, containing poppy-
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
husk. He further submitted that the invetigating agency, did not investigate into<\/p>\n
the matter, as to whom, the place belonged, where the bags, containing poppy-<\/p>\n
husk, were lying, on which the accused was allegedly found sitting. Since, the<\/p>\n
bags, containing poppy-husk, referred to above, were lying at a public place, on<\/p>\n
which he was sitting, it was for him to explain, as to how, those bags,<\/p>\n
containing poppy-husk, came to that place, and how he was found in possession<\/p>\n
thereof. He, however, failed to do so. Once the possession of the accused, in<\/p>\n
respect of the contraband, was proved, the statutory presumption, under<\/p>\n
Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, operated against him, that he was in conscious<\/p>\n
possession thereof. Then the onus shifted on to him, to prove that he was not in<\/p>\n
conscious possession thereof.     The accused, however, failed to rebut the<\/p>\n
statutory presumption aforesaid. In Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4)<\/p>\n
RCR (Criminal) 319, on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting on the<\/p>\n
gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested, while the other<\/p>\n
two fled. 25 bags containing poppy husk, were found, at the spot, which were<\/p>\n
seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, and the<\/p>\n
appeal filed by him, was also dismissed by the High Court. The Apex Court,<\/p>\n
upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, observing that he was in<\/p>\n
conscious possession.     The word ‘conscious’ means awareness, about a<\/p>\n
particular fact. It is the state of mind, which is deliberate or intended. It was<\/p>\n
further held that possession in a given case, need not be physical possession, but<\/p>\n
can be constructive, having power and control over the article, while the person<\/p>\n
whom physical possession is given holds it, subject to that power or control.<\/p>\n
In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was<\/p>\n
held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                    The word “conscious” means awareness about a
\n                    particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or
\n                    intended.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
                      Once possession is established, the person who claims<\/p>\n
                      that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it,<\/p>\n
                      because how he came to be in possession is within his<\/p>\n
                      special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory<\/p>\n
                      recognition of this position because of the presumption<\/p>\n
                      available in law.    Similar is the position in terms of<\/p>\n
                      Section 54 where also presumption is available to be<\/p>\n
                      drawn from possession of illicit articles.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
14-A.      It, therefore, could not be said that the accused was not aware of the<\/p>\n
bags, containing poppy-husk. It was not a small quantity of poppy-husk, which<\/p>\n
was concealed, and, as such, could escape the notice of the accused. Keeping in<\/p>\n
view the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, the provisions<\/p>\n
of Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, and the evidence produced, on record, the<\/p>\n
trial Court, in my opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the<\/p>\n
accused was in conscious possession of 4 bags, each containing 35 kgs. poppy-<\/p>\n
husk.   In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
15.        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
16.        In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on<\/p>\n
the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not<\/p>\n
warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
17.        For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The<\/p>\n
judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 9.3.1999, are upheld. If<\/p>\n
the accused\/appellant is on bail, then his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. The<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, shall take necessary steps, to comply with<\/p>\n
the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. and submit compliance report, to this
\n Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
Court, within a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.9.2008                                  (SHAM SUNDER)\nVimal                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.506-SB of 1999 Date of Decision : 8.9.2008 Jaggu Singh S\/o Nazir Singh, ….Appellant resident of Ghanauri Kalan, P.S.Sherpur. Versus The State of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-29T20:00:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T20:00:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3945,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T20:00:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-29T20:00:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T20:00:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008"},"wordCount":3945,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008","name":"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T20:00:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaggu-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaggu Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}