{"id":139920,"date":"2009-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-14T12:56:00","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T07:26:00","slug":"narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                  1\n                                                           S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89\n                                                           (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)\n\n\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.\n\n                                         J U D G M E N T.\n\n\n\n                        NARAYANPURI          V.       THE STATE OF RAJASHAN.\n\n\n\n\n                             S. B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16\/89,\n                             against the judgment dt.17.12.88,\n                             passed by Shri B.L.Bundel, Additional\n                             District & Sessions Judge, Barmer\n                            in Sessions Case No.36\/88.\n\n\n\n              DATE OF JUDGMENT                    :::               15\/09\/2009\n\n\n\n\n                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA\n\n\n              Mr. P.R. Choudhary, for Appellant (s).\n              Mr. Panney Singh, PP, for the State.\n\n\nREPORTABLE.   BY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
                     Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence awarded of ten<\/p>\n
              years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000\/- for the offence of<\/p>\n
              Sections 21 and 29, NDPS Act recorded per judgment dated 17.12.88.<\/p>\n
                     Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Public<\/p>\n
              Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
                     The facts alleged as per prosecution appear to be like that in<\/p>\n
              night between 24th and 25th November, 1987, a vehicle truck No. GTF<\/p>\n
              3675 being allegedly driven rashly        by driver Sohan Singh turned up by<\/p>\n
              side on road near Bachhdau resulting in death of two and injury to<\/p>\n
              some for which,    on   report of a passenger Ratna, FIR No.93\/87 was
\n                                   2<\/span>
\n                                         S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                         (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
registered at Police Station, Dhorimana,     district Barmer at 7 AM on<\/p>\n
25.11.87.\n<\/p>\n
       According to prosecution, on 25.11.87 at about 7 pm, Dy. S.P.<\/p>\n
Barmer informed on wireless at police station, Barmer that as some<\/p>\n
information regarding smuggling of heroin     is so   checking staff to be<\/p>\n
available at road crossing. Dy.S.P. arriving at police station at about 7<\/p>\n
pm told SHO PW 12 regarding information to the S.P. by some informer<\/p>\n
that the truck GTF 3675 owned by Tar Singh driven by his brother Bhom<\/p>\n
Singh while going towards Gujarat last night,     having heroin in tins of<\/p>\n
grease, met an accident, so Gom Singh and Narainpuri, in some truck,<\/p>\n
coming at Barmer and taking nisan truck RJC 3068-owned by Tar Singh-<\/p>\n
brought the injured to hospital   and    Narainpuri has placed grease tin<\/p>\n
taking from that truck GTF 3675 in this truck RJC 3068 and the truck now<\/p>\n
towards Ramsar with      dead body shall be back. So the SHO PW 12<\/p>\n
making entry in Roznamcha Ex.P16 proceeded         for Nakebandi on way<\/p>\n
also taking also other police personnels from road crossing.<\/p>\n
       Nakabandi was effected at 3-4 km from city near octroi post on<\/p>\n
road Ramsar to Barmer       and at about 0010 hours, truck        RJC 3068<\/p>\n
arriving    from Ramsar stopped, which found driven by Narainpuri the<\/p>\n
appellant and Mehtab Singh sitting on seat at side to him – in vehicle<\/p>\n
below driver seat- lying in tools was a red colour grease tin in which with<\/p>\n
grease over it was a yellow polythene bag and for taking it out, tin had<\/p>\n
to be cut by tools – in polythene was cloth bag (theli)          containing<\/p>\n
brownish powder smelting and testing like heroin – so seized – on weigh<\/p>\n
found 950 gm – a sample of 40 gm taken from substance sealed and<\/p>\n
remaining substance separately sealed-preparing memo Ex.P10             also<\/p>\n
affixed on it impression of the seal used. Preparing memos Exs.P11 and<\/p>\n
12 vehicle RJC 3068 and its documents seized appellant who was driving
\n                                     3<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
the vehicle arrested at 2.30 a.m. vide memo Ex.P13. Returning at police<\/p>\n
station, SHO making entry No.764 of all above in Roznamcha Ex.P17,<\/p>\n
registered FIR Ex.P18 No.93\/87 for the offences of NDPS and Customs<\/p>\n
Act. Sealed packets deposited and kept in malkhana with entry Ex.P3 in<\/p>\n
register. Site plan of the place of recovery is Ex.P19, memo of arrest of<\/p>\n
Gom Singh and Tar Singh are Exs. P20 and P21 – sample packet, with<\/p>\n
forwarding letter Ex.P8 deposited at laboratory obtaining receipt Ex.P7 .<\/p>\n
Recording statements of witnesses and with copies of FIR, charge-sheet<\/p>\n
copies    Exs. P5, 6, 1 and 2 pertaining to some other incident for the<\/p>\n
offences of NDPS Act and Customs Act      in relation to Tar Singh also and<\/p>\n
others charge sheet submitted mentioning that for Mehtab Singh<\/p>\n
separate challan is being filed in Children Court.<\/p>\n
         Narainpuri and Tara Singh charged for the offences of Sections 21<\/p>\n
and 29 and Gom Singh charged for the offence of Section 29-that they<\/p>\n
conspiringlly, in order to sale and deal, on 26.11.87 at about 1-2 am, in<\/p>\n
vehicle No. RHC 3068, keeping in tool box consciously possessed and<\/p>\n
transported 950 gm heroin vehicle owned by Tar Singh and driven by<\/p>\n
Narainpuri-denying claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
         Among the 13 prosecution witnesses examined, PW 12 is the SHO<\/p>\n
who doing all as above and searching the vehicle seized the substance<\/p>\n
who deposing so also proves respective memos. Ghisu Singh Rathore PW<\/p>\n
9 Sub-Inspector, Head Constable Kalu Ram PW 2, Constable Puna Ram<\/p>\n
PW 1       police personnels   were with SHO during search and seizure.<\/p>\n
Ratan PW 8 and Luna Ram PW 13           travelling in truck No. GTF 3675<\/p>\n
state regarding accident and injury to them and death of two. Both of<\/p>\n
them are declared hostile. Dr. Mangilal Bohra PW 10 examined injuries of<\/p>\n
PW 8 and PW 13 proves injury reports Exs. P14 and P15. Ram Singh PW<\/p>\n
3 Sub-Inspector in September, 1984 at police station, Kotwali, Barmer
\n                                     4<\/span>
\n                                           S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                           (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
state about searching vehicle GTF 3675 on 21.9.84 and finding of some<\/p>\n
Afgan nationals in it – Sohandas PW 5 SHO police station, Sangar in<\/p>\n
September, 1986 state about recovery of huge heroin on 19.9.86. ASI PW<\/p>\n
1 of Dhori Manna deposes about accident of vehicle GFT 3675 on<\/p>\n
25.11.87 and registration of FIR Ex.P14 at 7.00 AM on 25.11.87. Head<\/p>\n
Constable malkhana incharge PW 4, constables         Prema Ram PW 6 and<\/p>\n
Bhabu Ram PW 7 state about safe and intact delivery of sample packet<\/p>\n
at laboratory.\n<\/p>\n
         Laboratory report Ex.P24 of 11.4.78 describe that      on 11.12.07<\/p>\n
packet      received   with intact seal weighed 30 gm and substance on<\/p>\n
micro chemical examination gave positive test for presence of heroin.<\/p>\n
         Appellant’s explanation is that the witnesses are telling lie and he<\/p>\n
never was driver of this vehicle RJC 3068.\n<\/p>\n
         Learned Judge by the assailed judgment convicted and sentenced<\/p>\n
the appellant and acquitted other two Gom Singh and Tar Singh.<\/p>\n
         Here, it may be mentioned that for accident of vehicle GTF 3675,<\/p>\n
FIR registered at police Station, Dhori Manna Ex.P14 bears No.93\/87 and<\/p>\n
coincidently for recovery of this substance from vehicle RJC 3068 – FIR<\/p>\n
registered at Police Station, Barmer, also bears No.93\/87.<\/p>\n
         Learned counsel for the appellant thurstly argued    (1) that search<\/p>\n
and Nakabandi, as is very clear from the evidence of SHO PW 12, made<\/p>\n
only in consequence of certain information of a informer given to S.P., but<\/p>\n
(i) this information never nowhere reduced in writing; (ii) SHO PW 12<\/p>\n
directly not given any information to PW 12-Dy. S.P. told the information<\/p>\n
and which information mentioned to him by Superintendent of Police-even<\/p>\n
Dy. S.P. what to talk of higher officer is not among prosecution evidence;<\/p>\n
(iii) total non-compliance of S.42-when not reduced in writing, obviously<\/p>\n
copy not sent to higher officer and thus mandatory procedure under S.42
\n                                   5<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
not complied with in any manner. (2) Appellant, if driver, it was just by<\/p>\n
chance and only just to carry dead or injured to hospital – appellant<\/p>\n
otherwise never driver of any of the said vehicles. (3) Even allegedly<\/p>\n
appellant was not in vehicle No. 3675 which met accident and from which<\/p>\n
this grease tin is said to have taken and kept in Nishan truck No. RJC<\/p>\n
3068. (4) It cannot be that appellant taking the container shall keep in<\/p>\n
vehicle RJC 3068 – in any case, if that be so, per prosecution itself, only<\/p>\n
innocently on asking of Gom Singh. (5) Appellant at best simply a casual<\/p>\n
employee who has no knowledge of this substance in small tin and thus<\/p>\n
cannot be deemed to be in conscious possession.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel also argued that memos of impression of seal<\/p>\n
used not prepared – seal or memo – not deposited in malkhana – real<\/p>\n
description not proved to have been forwarded to laboratory – no<\/p>\n
description of imprint of seal in malkhana register so mentioning in report<\/p>\n
Ex.24 of seals being intact is without comparison. Submitted that making<\/p>\n
and preserving seal impressions and\/on      destructing the seal so as to<\/p>\n
eliminate any chance of tempering and manipulation essential, and not<\/p>\n
complied in this case. Lastly, submitted that weight with polythene bag<\/p>\n
of sample found at laboratory is 30 gm, whereas sample collected was 30<\/p>\n
gm thus variation in weight. In       support of the contentions, learned<\/p>\n
counsel placed reliance on (1) 1994 Cr.L.R. SC 241, State of Punjab v.<\/p>\n
Balbir Singh<\/a>; and (2) 1997 Cr.L.R. (a) Page 135, Nathu Banjara v. State;<\/p>\n
(b) P.132, Laxman Lal & Another v. State of Rajasthan; (c) P.806, Mohan<\/p>\n
v. The State of Rajasthan;(d) P. 536, Jarnail Singh v. The State of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan; (e) P.746, Bhajan Prakash v. The State of Rajasthan; (f)<\/p>\n
P.624, Shounath v. The State of Rajasthan; (g) P.635, Harnek Singh v.<\/p>\n
The State of Rajasthan; and (h) 653, Heeralal v. The State of Rajasthan.
\n                                    6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
        Countering above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor          argued<\/p>\n
that in the vehicle (driven) by the appellant just below his seat in tool box<\/p>\n
concealed was this tin containing heroin, and appellant being driver as<\/p>\n
also proved by other evidence, was in conscious possession so is rightly<\/p>\n
convicted.\n<\/p>\n
        Giving thoughtful considerations to above arguments, perused<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and record.\n<\/p>\n
        A reading of the evidence and documents disclose             that on<\/p>\n
25.11.87 at 7.00 A.M. registered is FIR No.93 at P.S. Dhorimanna for the<\/p>\n
incident of accident is truck No. GTF 3675. Per FIR Ex.P14 lodged by<\/p>\n
Ratna this d truck owned by Tar Chand was driven by his brother Gom<\/p>\n
Singh and due to allegedly rash, negligent and fast driving the vehicle<\/p>\n
turned and consequent to injuries two Vakta and Sachu died there and<\/p>\n
others Hema, Kana and Ratna injured.\n<\/p>\n
        Evidence of Ratna PW 8 and Luna Ram PW 13, though they are<\/p>\n
declared hostile, read with evidence of medical officer PW 10 proves that<\/p>\n
vehicle GTF 3675 was driven by Gom Singh and they both travelling in<\/p>\n
it . Vehicle turned    upside down they      injured and two others died.<\/p>\n
Registration of case at Police Station, Dhori Mana is proved by evidence of<\/p>\n
ASI PW 11.\n<\/p>\n
        Injured Ratan PW 8 states that as vehicle turned, the driver     Gom<\/p>\n
Singh    did arrange for nishan truck in which they brought to Barmer<\/p>\n
hospital. Similar is statement of other injured Loona Ram PW 13. Thus,<\/p>\n
apparent is that for transporting injured and others, vehicle was arranged<\/p>\n
by driver of GTF 3675.\n<\/p>\n
        One of the main arguments put forward         is non-compliance of<\/p>\n
Section 42. From the evidence of SHO, seizure officer PW 12 read with<\/p>\n
Roznamcha entry Ex.P15       made by PW 12,        it surfaces that (1) on
\n                                    7<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
information (some clue) given by Dy.S.P. PW 12 proceeded for<\/p>\n
Nakebandi, (2) Dy.S.P. told PW 12 that information is to Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Police by some informer, (3) PW 12 says that Dy. S.P. told of S.P.<\/p>\n
having received information who told him (the Dy. S.P.). Thus, neither<\/p>\n
Dy.S.P., nor SHO appear to be directly communicated by informer. None<\/p>\n
of the persons to whom the information given or first communicated are<\/p>\n
among prosecution witnesses. PW 12 does not say of reducing the<\/p>\n
information in writing – neither say of forwarding      any copy to higher<\/p>\n
officer. This information is not proved to be reduced in writing, nor copy<\/p>\n
forwarded.\n<\/p>\n
      Though, deficiency is apparent regarding compliance of Section 42,<\/p>\n
but   also is to be examined whether provisions of Section 42 are<\/p>\n
applicable on the given case.\n<\/p>\n
      According to prosecution, SHO proceeded in night, searched truck<\/p>\n
just after mid-night and in truck was found this tin and substance. The<\/p>\n
truck No. RJC 3068 was stopped and search at a public road – search<\/p>\n
made is of conveyance, a truck, and Section 43 of the Act specifically<\/p>\n
provides for seizure etc. at a public place. This vehicle was on a public<\/p>\n
place so only the provisions of Section 43 are applicable.<\/p>\n
      According to provisions of Section 43 of the Act, “any officer of any<\/p>\n
of the departments mentioned in S.42” may search. The section no-where<\/p>\n
provides for prescribing procedure mentioned in Section 42 (1) or (2).<\/p>\n
S. 42 (1) and (2) are desired to be followed if search is in the manner, at<\/p>\n
time and\/or place as described in Section 42 (1).\n<\/p>\n
      Hon’ble the Supreme Court dealing with provisions in 1994 Cr.L.R.<\/p>\n
SC 241, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh<\/a> held that only acting under S.42<\/p>\n
(1) information ought to be recorded. Similar is also held in Abdul Rashid<\/p>\n
Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2 SCC 513.
\n                                    8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
      Non-recording of such information       under Section 42 may make<\/p>\n
actions suspect, but not on this core alone necessarily leads to vitiation of<\/p>\n
trial. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 2009 (1) SCC Cr.393, K. C. Chithhayan v.<\/p>\n
State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> held like above that if search is to be made at a<\/p>\n
public place then applicable is Section 43 and not S. 42 (2).<\/p>\n
      For the above reasons,       argument for compliance of S.42 can<\/p>\n
hardly stand.\n<\/p>\n
      SHO PW 12 deposes that on information given by Deputy<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police, making entry Ex.P16 in Roznamcha, he<\/p>\n
proceeded along with other staff for Nakebandi and on way S.I. Jitu Singh<\/p>\n
with other personnels were at Ahinsa Chauraha who also taken along<\/p>\n
Nakebandi at octroi-post on road at a distance of about 3-4 km from town<\/p>\n
– at about 1210 mid-night from towards Ramsar came truck RJC 3068<\/p>\n
which giving signal stopped – the vehicle was driven by Narainpuri and<\/p>\n
on seat by side was Mehtab Singh – truck when searched, in its tool box,<\/p>\n
below driver seat was a grease tin in which in a polythene with grease<\/p>\n
over it, was a theli (bag) of white cloth containing powder like material<\/p>\n
and-as theli could not be taken out so tin cut and broken by tools –<\/p>\n
substance found was powder brownish like which smelt and tested as<\/p>\n
heroin so seized and weighed by accompanying head constable Kaluram,<\/p>\n
was 950 gms      from which sample of 30 gm separately sealed, rest<\/p>\n
separately sealed, prepared memo Ex.P15. PW 12 stating about seizure<\/p>\n
of vehicle and arrest etc. has identified Article 2 the packet of remaining<\/p>\n
substance, Art. 3 tin, Articles 4 and 5 tools using which tin broken, Art. 6<\/p>\n
small bag in which documents of vehicle were and Art. 1 the packet of<\/p>\n
remaining samples after examination. PW 12 says that light was arranged<\/p>\n
for which head constable Kaluram did went to police station and came<\/p>\n
making arrangements. On this other witnesses also stated and explained
\n                                    9<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
convincingly   that lights of vehicles were used     and gas for light was<\/p>\n
arranged from police station which was at about a distance of 3-4 km<\/p>\n
from the place of search. SHO PW 12 states that being mid-night, no<\/p>\n
possibility of finding independent witnesses though little effort made, still<\/p>\n
could not be available. Normally, it is desirable and also is requirement<\/p>\n
that independent witness should be but if convincing hard reasons are<\/p>\n
and no prejudice      or suspicion, the same cannot adversely affect<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      In addition to SHO PW 12, Sub-Inspector PW 9 states that per<\/p>\n
telephonic directions of Dy.S.P., he along with police personnels<\/p>\n
proceeded to the road crossing for being available and then Dy. S. P. and<\/p>\n
SHO with other police personnels and they all effected Nakebandi near<\/p>\n
octroi post, where in night around 1210 arriving RJC 3068 from towards<\/p>\n
Ramsar stopped and then searched. PW 9 describes recovery of heroin<\/p>\n
in the tin and his signatures are on memos Exs. 10, 12 and 13. Entry of<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector PW 9 departing from police station in Roznamch is Ex.P14.<\/p>\n
Testimony of these two witnesses PW 12 and PW 9 is corroborated by<\/p>\n
head constable Kalu PW 2 and constable Puna Ram PW 1.<\/p>\n
      Thus, proved is that the appellant was driving the vehicle               in<\/p>\n
which below seat in tool box kept was tin containing this substance.<\/p>\n
      PW 12 states that impression of seal was placed on memo of<\/p>\n
recovery Ex.P10 then and there. malkhana incharge Mangilal PW 4 proves<\/p>\n
depositing packets in Malkhana and making entry Ex.P3, but not mention<\/p>\n
about seal or impression of seal. Malkhana entry Ex.P3 does not find<\/p>\n
mention of depositing memo of impression on description of seal.<\/p>\n
      Sample of packet was deposited in laboratory by constable Prema<\/p>\n
Ram with forwarding letter Ex.P8 of the office of S.P. Described in Ex.P8<\/p>\n
is that along with packet are six papers – receipt Ex.P7 and report Ex.P24
\n                                   10<\/span>
\n                                         S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                         (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
mention number and date of forwarding letter Ex.P8. Bhabhut Singh PW<\/p>\n
7 constable working in the concerned section of S.P. Office              and<\/p>\n
constable Prema Ram PW 6 say that Prema Ram receiving packets from<\/p>\n
malkhana     incharge   PW 4 handed over to PW 7 who after getting<\/p>\n
documents (forwarding letters) prepared with documents handed over<\/p>\n
packet to Prema Ram who deposited in laboratory. Thus, documents were<\/p>\n
also forwarded and deposited in laboratory. Clear appears that copy of<\/p>\n
memo of seizure that is Ex.P10 forwarded and Ex.P10 bears impression of<\/p>\n
seal. On Ex.P10 seal is of impression JSB tallying with name of PW 12. As<\/p>\n
sample is proved to be      containing the die-acetyl     morphine stands<\/p>\n
proved that the entire substance was such, that is heroin coming within<\/p>\n
ambit of opium derivative and manufactured drug.<\/p>\n
      On the strength of (1) appellant being only driver and (2)what<\/p>\n
was said by Dy. S.P. to SHO he if at all did was only to place in and (3)<\/p>\n
not was appellant in truck No.3675 per FIR of accident, is argued that the<\/p>\n
appellant    could never have known and did not knew about this<\/p>\n
substance.\n<\/p>\n
      Trying to analyze this argument, per FIR of accident Ex.P14 that<\/p>\n
vehicle GTF 3675 was driven by Gomsingh – appellant Narainpuri was not<\/p>\n
in that vehicle. SHO PW 12 states that Dy. S.P. told him of the information<\/p>\n
given to S.P. and communicated to Dy.S.P. was        that Gom Singh was<\/p>\n
driving vehicle GTF 3675 and on accident, brought was vehicle nishan<\/p>\n
truck No. RJC 3068 driven by Narayanpuri and then as Gom Singh was<\/p>\n
also injured they all taken to hospital. Learned counsel argued that only<\/p>\n
on simple plain asking of Gom Singh, if appellant just put in a small tin<\/p>\n
of grease, that does not result, show or disclose possession of appellant<\/p>\n
Narayanpuri. In this context, also is submitted that grease being essential<\/p>\n
for maintenance of vehicle, is to be kept ready in every vehicle. In the
\n                                   11<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                          (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
considered opinion of the Court, the above argument is not of any<\/p>\n
substance     because Narainpuri was driving the vehicle and        if above<\/p>\n
argument is accepted, then as he was there only for helping injured.<\/p>\n
(Then, definitely,   no occasion arose and in normal course)          had no<\/p>\n
occasion, reason or would not have taken the tin from that vehicle 3675<\/p>\n
and to keep it in 3068 without reason. Above if true, then Narainpuri did<\/p>\n
so certainly with some definite knowledge,           than it is conscious<\/p>\n
possession. In addition, per narration of information (that tin was placed<\/p>\n
by appellant – and no other material) on which argument is based,<\/p>\n
appellant was in that vehicle 3675 and Gom Singh was injured – If Gom<\/p>\n
Singh was injured, he could not have asked for, nor appellant ought to<\/p>\n
have given any attention or heed to asking of taking and keeping this<\/p>\n
grease tin.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus, appeal regarding conviction is to be rejected. Appellant is<\/p>\n
convicted for the offence of Sections 21 and 29 – separate punishment on<\/p>\n
each count is ten year’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rupees one lac<\/p>\n
– in default one year rigorous imprisonment – substantive sentence to run<\/p>\n
concurrently. Thus, though concurrently running imprisonment is but<\/p>\n
separate for default of fine on each count.\n<\/p>\n
      Under Section 21 is punishment for possession, sale, purchase,<\/p>\n
transport, manufacture etc., whereas under Section 29 punishment is for<\/p>\n
conspiracy to commit or       abatements. As convicted under S.21 for<\/p>\n
possession and transporting, then no occasion arises for separate<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence for the offence of Section 29. Therefore, separate<\/p>\n
punishment awarded for the offence of Section 29 is to be set aside.<\/p>\n
      In default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for Rupees one lac. Appellant is a driver not having<\/p>\n
sufficient means so the sentence in default of payment deserves to be
\n                                  12<\/span>
\n                                         S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89
\n                                         (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.)<\/p>\n
reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, upholding conviction of appellant for the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 21 of the NDPS Act, the appeal is rejected. Sentence awarded of<\/p>\n
imprisonment in default of payment of fine of Rupees one lac is little<\/p>\n
altered and the appellant to under six months rigorous imprisonment in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine of Rupees one lac. Thus, appellant for the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act      to undergo ten years<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rupees one lac in default of<\/p>\n
payment to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment. Appellant<\/p>\n
Narayanpuri who is on bail cancelling his bail bonds, is ordered that to<\/p>\n
surrender forthwith before the trial Court and the trial Court is also<\/p>\n
directed to secure his presence to serve out the remaining sentence.<\/p>\n
                                               (C. M. TOTLA), J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 1 S.B.Criminal Appeal No.16\/89 (Narayanpuri v. The State of Raj.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T. NARAYANPURI V. THE STATE OF RAJASHAN. S. B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16\/89, against the judgment […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nNarayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 - 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\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-14T07:26:00+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-14T07:26:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3444,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-14T07:26:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 - 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\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-14T07:26:00+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-14T07:26:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009"},"wordCount":3444,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009","name":"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-14T07:26:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-puri-vs-state-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narayan Puri vs State on 15 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/139920","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=139920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}