{"id":141474,"date":"2009-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-04T17:26:05","modified_gmt":"2018-05-04T11:56:05","slug":"sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                      -1-\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n                        ****\n                           Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)\n                                    Date of Decision:09.09.2009\n\nSanjay Kumar @ Sanju\n                                                        .....Appellant\n            Vs.\n\nThe State of Haryana\n                                                        .....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with\n            Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant.\n\n            Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Additional Advocate\n            General, Haryana.\n                        ****\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
HARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
            This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.2004\/<\/p>\n
order of sentence dated 17.7.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused<\/p>\n
Sanjay Kumar alias Sanju to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac under Section 18 of the Narcotic<\/p>\n
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, `the Act’) and in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
one year.\n<\/p>\n
            The facts in brief are that on 22.2.2002 Jagdish Kumar SI<\/p>\n
happened to be present at Ratia Octroi Post, Fatehabad being on patrol duty.<\/p>\n
In the meanwhile, the accused was spotted approaching from the side of<\/p>\n
Balmiki Chowk, Fatehabad with a plastic bag slinging from his shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                       -2-\n<\/p>\n
On catching sight of the police party, he turned back and started walking<\/p>\n
briskly. On suspicion, he was intercepted and served with a notice under<\/p>\n
Section 50 of the Act. He offered to have a search in the presence of a<\/p>\n
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Jiwan Singh Naib Tehsildar was called at<\/p>\n
the spot. On search of the plastic bag, 10 kg. opium yielded. The usual<\/p>\n
formalities were observed.     The accused was put under arrest.       After<\/p>\n
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial<\/p>\n
of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
            The accused was charged under Section 18 of the Act to which<\/p>\n
he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the<\/p>\n
accused, the prosecution examined PW1 HC Om Parkash, PW2 HC Bhaga<\/p>\n
Ram, PW3 MHC Jagdish Chanhder , PW4 Balwan Singh, PW5 Inspector<\/p>\n
Surat Singh SHO, PW6 C. Dilbag Singh, PW7 S.I. Jagdish Kumar, PW8<\/p>\n
Jiwan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, PW9 S.I. Khayali Ram and closed its<\/p>\n
evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied<\/p>\n
all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence<\/p>\n
against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He has put<\/p>\n
forth that “On 22.2.02, two other persons namely Om Parkash son of Kesra<\/p>\n
Ram and Bhagwan Dass son of Inder Singh, residents of Dhanger were<\/p>\n
detained in the police station and then I.O. told them that if you have<\/p>\n
arranged a person in place of you, then you will be released. I was declared<\/p>\n
Proclaimed Offender in a case. I was arrested\/ detained and at the instance<\/p>\n
of abovesaid persons, a false case was registered against me. An application<\/p>\n
was made by my wife Monika to DIG, Hisar. On that application, no action<\/p>\n
was taken by the officers.”\n<\/p>\n
            In his defence, he examined his wife Monika DW1, Constable
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                      -3-\n<\/p>\n
Puran Chand DW2, HC Om Parkash DW3 and closed his evidence.<\/p>\n
            After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the<\/p>\n
learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned<\/p>\n
trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset.<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved with his conviction\/ sentence, he has preferred this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides<\/p>\n
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.<\/p>\n
            Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate strenuously urged that<\/p>\n
the appellant had opted to have the search of his bag in the presence of a<\/p>\n
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, whereas the Investigator had joined Naib<\/p>\n
Tehsildar Jiwan Singh PW8 who is neither a Gazetted Officer nor a<\/p>\n
Magistrate. Thus, palpably the search was not taken in the presence of a<\/p>\n
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Sequelly, the whole trial stands vitiated<\/p>\n
because of non-observance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 ibid.<\/p>\n
To buttress this stance, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the<\/p>\n
observations rendered in Dalbir Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2008(3)<\/p>\n
Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 581.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned State Counsel has controverted this submission by<\/p>\n
urging that the recovery being from a bag, the provisions of Section 50 were<\/p>\n
not to be adhered to. This contention merits acceptance. As would be<\/p>\n
apparent from Ex.P9, the notice purportedly served under Section 50 ibid<\/p>\n
upon the appellant, the appellant was offered to have search of his bag in<\/p>\n
the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In re: Kalema Tumba<\/p>\n
v. State of Maharashtra,<\/a> 1999(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal)<\/p>\n
575 (Supreme Court) 2 kgs of heroin was recovered from the bag of the
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                         -4-\n<\/p>\n
accused and not from his person. It was ruled by the Apex Court that “If a<\/p>\n
person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and narcotic drug or<\/p>\n
the psychotropic substance is found from it, it cannot be said that it was<\/p>\n
found from his `person’. The heroin was found from a bag belonging to the<\/p>\n
appellant and not from his person and, therefore, it was not necessary for<\/p>\n
making an offer for search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a<\/p>\n
Magistrate.” Further in re: Megh Singh v. State of Punjab,<\/a> 2004(1) Apex<\/p>\n
Criminal 482 (S.C.), it has been held that “a bare reading of Section 50<\/p>\n
shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not<\/p>\n
extend to search of a vehicle or container or a bag or premises.” On<\/p>\n
viewing the matter in hand, in the light of rule laid down by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in these authorities, it stands crystalised that the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
50 ibid were not attracted to the instant case. It is worth mentioning here<\/p>\n
that by and large, the naib-tehsildars are vested with the powers of<\/p>\n
Executive Magistrate. To crown it all, the appellant was not offered to have<\/p>\n
his personal search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He was asked<\/p>\n
to have the search of his bag before such officers. So, by no stretch of<\/p>\n
imagination, the provisions of this Section were required to be observed.<\/p>\n
             On behalf of the appellant, it has been further agitated at the bar<\/p>\n
that no independent and disinterested public witness was joined in the<\/p>\n
police party to witness the alleged search and seizure of the contraband<\/p>\n
despite the fact that the appellant has allegedly been apprehended at about<\/p>\n
6:00 P.M., on Octroi Post, where there could be no dearth as to the<\/p>\n
availability of independent witnesses. Thus, it would not be free from risk<\/p>\n
to maintain conviction of the appellant. I am unable to persuade myself to<\/p>\n
agree with this submission. In re: Appabhai and another v. State of
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                            -5-\n<\/p>\n
Gujarat, 1988 (Supplementary) Supreme Court Cases 241, it has been<\/p>\n
held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
               “Merely because of the failure on the part of the prosecution to<\/p>\n
               produce any independent witness to the incident that occurred<\/p>\n
               at a public place like a bus stand, where there must have been<\/p>\n
               several of such witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be<\/p>\n
               thrown out or doubted. Generally people are insensitive when<\/p>\n
               a crime is committed even in their presence. The court instead<\/p>\n
               of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent<\/p>\n
               witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution<\/p>\n
               version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard<\/p>\n
               to probability, if any, suggested by the accused.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Further in re: State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh,<\/a> 1994(1)<\/p>\n
Recent Criminal Reports 736, it has been ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court that “there is no bar in recording the conviction by relying upon the<\/p>\n
statements of police officers.” It has been observed in paragraph No.8 of<\/p>\n
the judgment that “It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to<\/p>\n
be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an<\/p>\n
official, but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends<\/p>\n
on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these<\/p>\n
provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate<\/p>\n
some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these<\/p>\n
provisions.”\n<\/p>\n
               Adverting to the present one, Jagdish Kumar SI PW7<\/p>\n
Investigator has testified that “I tried to join independent witnesses, but
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                       -6-\n<\/p>\n
nobody was prepared.”       It clearly indicates that efforts to join such<\/p>\n
witnesses were made, but none was willing to join in the investigation. In<\/p>\n
re: Appabhai and another’s case (supra), it has been observed in candid<\/p>\n
terms that merely because of the failure on the part of the prosecution to<\/p>\n
produce an independent witness to the incident that occurred at a public<\/p>\n
place like a bus stand where there must have been several of such witnesses,<\/p>\n
the prosecution cannot be thrown out or doubted. In the instant case, PW8<\/p>\n
Jiwan Singh Naib Tehsildar has been joined. By no process of reasoning, he<\/p>\n
would have been interested in the success of the case by siding with the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer. A meticulous perusal of his statement would reveal<\/p>\n
that he could not be shattered or shaken in any manner and stood like a<\/p>\n
rock. If this huge recovery would have not been effected within his view,<\/p>\n
he would have not come forward to depose against the appellant. The<\/p>\n
common place experience lends credence to the fact that now-a-days, the<\/p>\n
public men are too apathetic to offer themselves to join in the investigation<\/p>\n
of even heinous offences much less the recovery cases. It lurks in their<\/p>\n
mind that if they come forward to join investigation they will have to waste<\/p>\n
their time by coming to the Courts to give evidence besides earning wrath of<\/p>\n
the accused. In re: Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Recent<\/p>\n
Criminal Reports 146, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-<\/p>\n
            “A Panch witness may turn hostile and not support the case of<\/p>\n
            the prosecution or may be hesitant in appearing in the Court<\/p>\n
            and depose against an accused for various reasons from fear to<\/p>\n
            bribe. He is an average and ordinary human being and quite<\/p>\n
            exposed and vulnerable to the human feelings of yielding,<\/p>\n
            brow-beating, threats, inducements, etc. To figure as a Panch-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                      -7-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            witness at the stage of police investigation, is one thing, and<\/p>\n
            thereafter to give evidence before the Court is entirely a<\/p>\n
            different thing. In fact, a Panch witness generally think twice<\/p>\n
            before entering into a witness-box and if at all he enters the<\/p>\n
            same, one would not be surprised if he does not support the<\/p>\n
            prosecution because of variety of the reasons mentioned above.<\/p>\n
            Therefore, the fact that the prosecution has given up the<\/p>\n
            independent public person Nirbhai Singh having been won over<\/p>\n
            by the accused persons, is fully justified in the present day<\/p>\n
            situation prevailing in the Society and no adverse inference<\/p>\n
            against the prosecution can be drawn in this case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In view of the above discussion, this contention being<\/p>\n
untenable is overruled.\n<\/p>\n
            The next argument having been raised on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellant is that Om Parkash HC PW1 was allegedly on leave on 22.2.2002,<\/p>\n
i.e., the date of alleged recovery. The learned trial Court has noticed the<\/p>\n
fact that Sub Inspector Balwan Singh PW4 has admitted that he had<\/p>\n
recorded the statement of MHC Om Parkash under Section 161 of Cr.P.C<\/p>\n
and that he had added some lines at the bottom of his statement. If this is<\/p>\n
the state of affairs, then how the reliance could be placed upon the<\/p>\n
testimony of the official witnesses examined by the prosecution.       The<\/p>\n
affidavits of Om Parkash HC PW1, Jagdish Chander PW3 and of Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh Constable were defective as the same have not been verified<\/p>\n
according to law and that being so, these are required to be excluded from<\/p>\n
consideration. Once this is done, there is dent in the prosecution case. SI<\/p>\n
Jagdish Kumar PW7 has admitted that he remained with the SHO of Police
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                       -8-\n<\/p>\n
Station City Fatehabad till 9:20 P.M. From the defence evidence, it stood<\/p>\n
however proved that there is entry in the roznamcha showing his presence in<\/p>\n
CIA Staff Fatehabad at 9:20 P.M. on the same day. There is nothing on the<\/p>\n
record to show that the sample seal was prepared at the spot. Thus, it is<\/p>\n
unknown as to how the sample seal had been sent to the laboratory. All<\/p>\n
this goes to show that the entire case has been fabricated in the police<\/p>\n
station.\n<\/p>\n
            I have well considered these submissions. The thrust of this<\/p>\n
argument is that the link evidence is incomplete in this case.          This<\/p>\n
contention indeed runs counter to the documentary evidence on record. It is<\/p>\n
in the evidence of Jiwan Singh Naib Tehsildar PW8 that “SI Jagdish Kumar<\/p>\n
handed over his seal to HC Khayali Ram after obtaining sample seal and I<\/p>\n
kept my seal with myself after obtaining sample seal.” This evidence leaves<\/p>\n
no scope for doubt that the case property including sample parcels were also<\/p>\n
sealed with seal JS belonging to this witness. Besides this, the sample seal<\/p>\n
was also prepared. This witness had retained his own seal with himself. So,<\/p>\n
the possibility of tampering with the contents of sample parcel stands ruled<\/p>\n
out, when the matter is viewed in the background of the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory’s report Ex.P17 which says that the seals were intact and tallied<\/p>\n
with the specimen seal as per forwarding authority letter. Inspector Surat<\/p>\n
Singh PW5 who was posted as SHO Police Station City Fatehabad on<\/p>\n
22.2.2002 has solemnly affirmed that “on that day, SI Jagdish Kumar<\/p>\n
produced before me accused present in the Court along-with witnesses and<\/p>\n
case property. I verified the facts from accused as well as witnesses and<\/p>\n
affixed my seal `SS’ on the sample as well as residue.” This further tends to<\/p>\n
show that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act were duly complied with.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                        -9-\n<\/p>\n
PW1 HC Om Parkash has deposed that on 22.2.2002, I was posted in City<\/p>\n
Fatehabad as MHC. He has tendered his affidavit Ex.P1. It is in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination that “the case property was deposited with me at about 9:30<\/p>\n
P.M.” True that he has deposed in his cross-examination that “I proceeded<\/p>\n
on leave on the night of 22.2.2002 after handing over the case property to<\/p>\n
HC Jagdish Chander.” The latter as PW3 has also deposed that HC Om<\/p>\n
Parkash had deposited the case property while proceeding on leave. He has<\/p>\n
also tendered his affidavit Ex.P3. It is in the cross-examination of HC<\/p>\n
Jagdish Chander PW3 that “at the time of deposit of case property, Om<\/p>\n
Parkash HC was working as MHC, thereafter, he proceeded on leave after<\/p>\n
handing over the charge.” Constable Dilbag Singh PW6 has deposed that<\/p>\n
on 25.2.2002, I was posted in Police Station City Fatehabad.           He has<\/p>\n
tendered his affidavit Ex.P8. In fact, he carried the sample parcel to the<\/p>\n
FSL for chemical analysis. Of course, SI Balwan Singh PW4 in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination has stated that I have seen Ex.D1, and it is correct that in<\/p>\n
Ex.D1, two lines were written by me with pen later on, however, remaining<\/p>\n
lines were not written in original statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C in<\/p>\n
judicial file and it is correct that I have made correction in the statement of<\/p>\n
HC Jagdish and Constable Dilbag at the place where date is mentioned and<\/p>\n
it is correct that there is no initial after correcting the date on the<\/p>\n
statements,” but it is apt to be borne in mind that Om Parkash is a person<\/p>\n
with whom only the case property was deposited and the same had remained<\/p>\n
with him for few hours only and when he proceeded on leave on that very<\/p>\n
day, he handed over the case property to HC Jagdish Chander. Thus, if SI<\/p>\n
Balwan Singh who is not the Investigator had added a few lines in Ex.D1,<\/p>\n
the same hardly affects merits of the case. Section 161(1) of Cr.P.C reads as
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                       -10-\n<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “161. Examination of witnesses by police. — (1) Any police<\/p>\n
            officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any<\/p>\n
            police officer not below such rank as the State Government<\/p>\n
            may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting<\/p>\n
            on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any<\/p>\n
            person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and<\/p>\n
            circumstances the case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It has been manifested in plain words in this language that a<\/p>\n
witness under this Section can be examined even orally.<\/p>\n
            A conjoint reading of Ex.P1, the affidavit of HC Om Parkash,<\/p>\n
affidavit Ex.P3 of HC Jagdish Chander, affidavit Ex.P8 of Constable Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh PW6 and the FSL report would go a long way in proving that the<\/p>\n
chain of link evidence is complete.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been further argued by Mr. Lakhanpal that it is in the<\/p>\n
cross-examination of Jagdish Kumar SI PW7 that “it is correct that there is<\/p>\n
no seal of `SS’ on the case property. It is correct that there is no Madh<\/p>\n
(item) number on the case property of police station. However, the case<\/p>\n
property and madh number of treasury is mentioned dated 6.3.2002.” That<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution is that the case property was sealed with seals<\/p>\n
JK, JS and SS whereas the case property when produced in the Court did<\/p>\n
not bear the seal SS. Furthermore, the case property did not bear the item<\/p>\n
number of the police station. These two deficiencies bring out that the case<\/p>\n
property produced at the trial has not been connected with the appellant. I<\/p>\n
regret my inability to be one with Mr. Lakhanpal. It emanates from the<\/p>\n
evidence referred to hereinbefore, that the case property was deposited in
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                       -11-\n<\/p>\n
the treasury. As per rules, the opium has to be deposited in the treasury.<\/p>\n
The case of the prosecution should not be thrown overboard merely because<\/p>\n
the MHC did not scribe the item number assigned in Register No.19 on the<\/p>\n
case property. This lapse on his part pales into insignificance in view of the<\/p>\n
item number allotted to the case property by the treasury. The recovery was<\/p>\n
effected on 22.2.2002. Jagdish Kumar PW7 was examined on 11.7.2003.<\/p>\n
During this interregnum, the seal `SS’ affixed on the case property by<\/p>\n
becoming brittle due to humidity as well as due to contrition sustained by<\/p>\n
coming into contact with the property of other cases would have fallen off.<\/p>\n
            Now a word about defence needs to be recorded. Monika DW1<\/p>\n
none else but wife of the appellant has stated in a nutshell that the police<\/p>\n
took up her husband on 21.2.2002 from the house, because he was wanted<\/p>\n
in a case under Section 294 of IPC of PS City Fatehabad. On that day, two<\/p>\n
other persons namely Om Parkash son of Kesra Ram and Bhagwan Dass son<\/p>\n
of Inder Singh resident of Dhangar were also sitting in the Police Station.<\/p>\n
Her husband told her that the police wanted to involve him in a false case<\/p>\n
under Sections of NDPS Act instead of above two persons who were present<\/p>\n
in the Police Station. That at the instance of above said two persons, her<\/p>\n
husband was falsely implicated in this case. And that the police did not take<\/p>\n
any action on her application Ex.DW1\/A. I have considered this evidence.<\/p>\n
A glance through Ex.DW1\/A would reveal that it was purportedly got typed<\/p>\n
on 3.7.2002 though the recovery was effected on 22.2.2002. It tends to<\/p>\n
show that this was moved after more than four months of the recovery.<\/p>\n
During this interregnum, she had got ample time to cook up a story to save<\/p>\n
her husband from the clutches of the prosecution.         Had her husband-<\/p>\n
appellant been whisked away from her house in the alleged manner, in the
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                       -12-\n<\/p>\n
normal course of her conduct, she would have raised hue and cry in the<\/p>\n
locality where her house is situated and moved telegrams to the high-ups<\/p>\n
besides approaching the higher authorities of the police hierarchy<\/p>\n
personally.    Thus, the version set forth in Ex.DW1\/A can be hardly<\/p>\n
believed.\n<\/p>\n
              DW2 Constable Puran Chand No.321 has deposed that the<\/p>\n
Roznamcha at Rapat No.39 dated 22.2.2002 entry relating to deposit of case<\/p>\n
property is mentioned and time of returning of Jagdish Kumar Inspector is<\/p>\n
9:10 P.M. It is correct that there is no rapat mentioned about leave of MHC<\/p>\n
in the rapat rojnamcha and there is no entry regarding change of MHC from<\/p>\n
Serial No.39 to 49 till 23.2.2002. It is correct that there are signatures of<\/p>\n
HC Om Parkash. By dwelling over this evidence, Mr. Lakhanpal argued<\/p>\n
that as per this record, MHC Om Parkash had not proceeded on leave, nor<\/p>\n
there is entry regarding change of the Moharrar Head Constable. This<\/p>\n
contention is also unacceptable. Towards the end of his cross-examination,<\/p>\n
this witness Puran Chand Constable has testified that “It is correct that<\/p>\n
record regarding the leave is separate.” If the appellant did entertain any<\/p>\n
doubt that on 22.2.2002 Om Parkash MHC had not proceeded on leave, then<\/p>\n
the record pertaining to his leave could have been got summoned and<\/p>\n
produced in the Court. It is also in the cross-examination of this witness<\/p>\n
that “It is correct that as per Entry No.39 SI Jagdish Kumar produced the<\/p>\n
accused present in the Court, the case property and witnesses before SHO<\/p>\n
and SHO after verifying the facts affixed his seal and directed I.O to deposit<\/p>\n
the case property with MHC. This evidence ostensibly shows that the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 55 of the Act were complied with. HC Om Parkash<\/p>\n
DW3 has deposed that as per Entry No.9, SI Jagdish Chander left the CIA
\n Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M)                        -13-\n<\/p>\n
Staff at 12:15 P.M along with HC Khayali Ram and others. Earlier, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant had argued that as per Puran Chand<\/p>\n
Constable’s evidence, the time of returning of Jagdish Kumar Sub Inspector<\/p>\n
is 9:10 P.M whereas according to HC Om Parkash DW3 as per Entry No.9<\/p>\n
SI Jagdish Chander had left the CIA staff on 12:15 P.M, if it is so, the entire<\/p>\n
prosecution version is rendered highly doubtful. This contention fails to<\/p>\n
inspire confidence. Towards the end of his cross-examination Om Parkash<\/p>\n
HC DW3 has stated in clear and unambiguous terms that “It is correct that<\/p>\n
the distance between the Police Station and CIA Staff was covered in a<\/p>\n
vehicle within 4-5 minutes.      The CIA Staff Office is situated in the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of police station City Fatehabad.” It follows from this evidence<\/p>\n
that the distance between the Police Station as well as CIA Staff is hardly 4-<\/p>\n
5 minutes run by a vehicle.       This evidence nullifies the limb of Mr.<\/p>\n
Lakhanpal’s arguments.\n<\/p>\n
             Needless to say, the officer of the rank of Sub Inspector could<\/p>\n
not afford to plant such a heavy recovery of opium worth lacs upon the<\/p>\n
appellant. He could not arrange it from any source. The record is also quite<\/p>\n
barren to show that the investigator was inimically disposed of towards the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             No other material point has been urged or agitated by either<\/p>\n
counsel. On scrutinising and analysing the entire evidence, it emerges out<\/p>\n
that no infirmity surge to the surface. Sequelly, the appeal is dismissed<\/p>\n
being devoid of any merit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 09, 2009                                 ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                    JUDGE\n\nWhether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes\/No\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009 Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Appeal No.1560-SB of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.09.2009 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju …..Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM:- […]<\/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-141474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 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\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-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=\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-04T11:56:05+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\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T11:56:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3927,\"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\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T11:56:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 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":"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 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\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-04T11:56:05+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\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T11:56:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009"},"wordCount":3927,"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\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009","name":"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T11:56:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-sanju-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju vs The State Of Haryana on 9 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\/141474","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=141474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}