{"id":189753,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-14T02:19:03","modified_gmt":"2018-04-13T20:49:03","slug":"singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008<\/div>\n
               Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997\n                             1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,\n             CHANDIGARH\n\n                                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997\n                                Date of decision. 23.07.2008\n\n\nDilawar Singh @ Kala son of Narang Singh son of Waryam\n\nSingh, agriculturist, r\/o village Dogarpur, P.S. Garshankar.\n\n                                             ....... Appellant\n                         Versus\nThe State of Punjab\n                                             ........ Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent:     Ms. Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate\n             for the appellant.\n\n             Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab\n             fhe respondent.\n\n                         ****\n\nSham Sunder, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This appeal is directed against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction    and the order of sentence dated 22.04.1997,<\/p>\n
rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide<\/p>\n
which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence,<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and<\/p>\n
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be<\/p>\n
as the ‘Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period<\/p>\n
of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of<\/p>\n
payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for<\/p>\n
a period of two years.\n<\/p>\n
                 Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.                  The facts, in brief, are that on 05.09.1995<\/p>\n
ASI Balwinder Singh along with H.C. Sawinder Pal, and some<\/p>\n
other police officials, was present, at the bus stand of village<\/p>\n
Denowal Khurd, in connection with patrol duty. He received a<\/p>\n
secret information against accused Dilawar Singh, that he was<\/p>\n
dealing in the sale of poppy husk, and if a raid was conducted,<\/p>\n
recovery of poppy husk could be effected from him. On receipt<\/p>\n
of this information, ruqa Ex.PG, was sent to the Police Station,<\/p>\n
on the basis whereof FIR Ex.PG\/1 was registered. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
ASI Balwinder Singh, along with other members of the police<\/p>\n
party, went to the house of the accused for raid. The accused<\/p>\n
was found present in his house. Ram Lubhaya, Constable, was<\/p>\n
sent to bring     respectables but due to party faction in the<\/p>\n
village, no person was willing to join the raid. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
accused was taken into police custody and interrogated. He<\/p>\n
suffered a disclosure statement that he had concealed 13 bags<\/p>\n
of poppy husk in a kotha, in which wheat chaff was lying, of<\/p>\n
which he only knew and could get         the same    recovered.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the    accused led the police party, to the pre-<\/p>\n
disclosed place and got recovered 13 bags, each containing 36<\/p>\n
Kgs poppy husk.        The accused made another disclosure<\/p>\n
statement that he had concealed seven bottles of Indian made<\/p>\n
foreign liquor make Binney Aristocrat in a room of his house,<\/p>\n
about which only he knew and could get the same recovered.<\/p>\n
In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he got recovered
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
seven bottles of licit liquor from the pre disclosed place, for<\/p>\n
which a separate case was registered.    Wireless message was<\/p>\n
sent to the DSP, Hoshiarpur, as a result whereof, he came to the<\/p>\n
spot. ASI Balwinder Singh produced before him the accused<\/p>\n
and 13 bags each containing 36 Kgs poppy husk, referred to<\/p>\n
above. The DSP, Hoshiarpur, took out a sample of 250 grams<\/p>\n
poppy husk from each of the bags. Thereafter, the contents of<\/p>\n
the samples were put into separate packets, and the remaining<\/p>\n
poppy husk was kept in the same bags. These were converted<\/p>\n
into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide<\/p>\n
separate recovery memo.       The site plan was prepared. The<\/p>\n
statements of the witnesses were recorded.           After the<\/p>\n
completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.<\/p>\n
3.                 On his appearance, in the Court,        the<\/p>\n
accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by<\/p>\n
the prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was<\/p>\n
framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty<\/p>\n
and claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.                  The prosecution, in support of its case,<\/p>\n
examined Nasib Chand, Constable, (PW-1), Paramjit Singh,<\/p>\n
Head Constable, (PW-2), Sarwan Singh, DSP, (PW-3),<\/p>\n
Sawinder Pal, Head Constable, (PW-4), and           Balwinder<\/p>\n
Singh, ASI, (PW-5) Thereafter, the Addl. P.P for the State,<\/p>\n
closed the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
5.                 The statement of the accused, under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded.<\/p>\n
He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing<\/p>\n
against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication. He, however, led no evidence in his defence.<\/p>\n
6.                 After   hearing   the   Additional    Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on<\/p>\n
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<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused\/appellant.<\/p>\n
8.                 I have heard the Counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
and have gone through the evidence and record of the case,<\/p>\n
carefully.\n<\/p>\n
9.           The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset,<\/p>\n
submitted that though a secret information was received by<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer, yet he neither reduced the same into<\/p>\n
writing, nor sent the same to the Officer Superior<\/p>\n
immediately. He further contended that, as such, there was<\/p>\n
breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act,<\/p>\n
which must result into vitiation of the investigation, as also<\/p>\n
the subsequent proceedings, and, as such, the accused was<\/p>\n
entitled to acquittal. The submission of the Counsel for the
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It is,<\/p>\n
proved from the evidence of ASI Balwinder Singh, that on<\/p>\n
receipt of the secret information against the accused ( now<\/p>\n
appellant ) that he was in possession of poppy husk, ruqa<\/p>\n
Ex.PG, containing the information, was sent to the Police<\/p>\n
Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR Ex.PG\/1           was<\/p>\n
recorded by Raj Kumar, Sub Inspector. After recording the<\/p>\n
FIR, the special reports were sent to the Illaqa Magistrate as<\/p>\n
also the higher Police Officers. Even after the recovery of 13<\/p>\n
bags each containing 36 Kgs of poppy husk,             wireless<\/p>\n
message was sent to the DSP, Hoshiarpur, who came to the<\/p>\n
spot. He was apprised of the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case, as also the recovery of poppy husk, from the accused,<\/p>\n
who verified the same.    In the instant case, the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 42 of the Act, were, therefore, complied with. The<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant relied upon          Directorate of<\/p>\n
Revenue & Anr. v. Mohammed Nisar Holia 2008(1) RCR<\/p>\n
( Criminal ) 241 in support of her contention that violation<\/p>\n
of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act amount to the<\/p>\n
vitiation of conviction and sentence. The perusal of the facts<\/p>\n
of the aforesaid case,     clearly goes to show that secret<\/p>\n
information, which was received by the Investigating Officer,<\/p>\n
was not reduced into writing, but conveyed to another officer,<\/p>\n
who reduced the same into writing. It was thus, held that the<\/p>\n
officer who received the information was required to reduce
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
the same into writing and having not done so, the conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence stood vitiated. In the instant case, as stated<\/p>\n
above, the secret information     was received by Balwinder<\/p>\n
Singh, ASI. He reduced the same into writing, in the form<\/p>\n
ruqa Ex.PG, and sent the same to his Officer Superior i.e.<\/p>\n
SHO of the Police Station , as a result whereof, formal FIR<\/p>\n
Ex.PG\/1 was recorded. Thereafter, special reports were sent<\/p>\n
to the Illaqa Magistrate and the Superior Officers. The facts<\/p>\n
of the Directorate of Revenue & Anr.’s case ( supra ),<\/p>\n
therefore being distinguishable, from the facts of the instant<\/p>\n
case, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
therefrom. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
10.                It was next submitted by the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, that no independent witness, was joined, by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, despite receipt of a secret information<\/p>\n
against the accused. She further submitted that even no effort<\/p>\n
was made to join an independent witness.           She further<\/p>\n
submitted that, on account of this reason, the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution became doubtful. She placed reliance on State<\/p>\n
of Punjab v. Jeet Singh,<\/a> 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 509 in<\/p>\n
support of her contention. The submission of the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.<\/p>\n
Balwinder Singh, ASI, who appeared in the witness box as,<\/p>\n
PW5, stated that, as soon as, he received a secret information
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
against the accused-appellant, he along with other police<\/p>\n
officials, went to the house of the accused. He further stated<\/p>\n
that after reaching the house of the accused\/appellant, he sent<\/p>\n
Constable      Ram Lubhaya to the         village to bring the<\/p>\n
respectables, but due to party faction, in the village, no person<\/p>\n
was willing to join the investigation. This clearly goes to<\/p>\n
show that, an effort was made, by the Investigating Officer, to<\/p>\n
join an independent witness, but none was ready to join, on<\/p>\n
account of party faction. It is a matter of common experience,<\/p>\n
that in the villages, there are two to three factions.       On<\/p>\n
account of the existence of such factions, in the villages, no<\/p>\n
body is ready to come forward, to join the search and seizure,<\/p>\n
proceedings conducted by the police, so as to avoid the wrath<\/p>\n
of the accused and complication, at a later stage, for appearing<\/p>\n
as a witness in the Court, from time to time.     Had no effort<\/p>\n
been made by the Investigating Officer, to join an<\/p>\n
independent witness, some merit might have been found, in<\/p>\n
the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant. If despite<\/p>\n
efforts, having been made by the Investigating Officer, he was<\/p>\n
not successful, in joining an independent witness, then his<\/p>\n
conduct could not be said to be blame-worthy. In State of<\/p>\n
Punjab’s case ( supra ) relied upon by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, there was violation of the mandatory provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 42; no independent witness had been joined by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, at the time of recovery and even no
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
effort had been made by him to join the independent witness.<\/p>\n
It was under these circumstances, that in the aforesaid case,<\/p>\n
the appellant was acquitted by a Division Bench of this Court.<\/p>\n
The facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable<\/p>\n
from the facts of the present case. No help can be drawn by<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant therefrom. On account of non<\/p>\n
joining of an independent witness, the evidence of the official<\/p>\n
witnesses, cannot be distrusted and disbelieved. From the<\/p>\n
cogent, convincing and trust-worthy evidence of the official<\/p>\n
witnesses, it was proved beyond doubt, that in pursuance of<\/p>\n
the disclosure statement made by the accused, he got<\/p>\n
recovered 13 bags containing poppy husk. Nothing could be<\/p>\n
brought out, during the course of the cross-examination of<\/p>\n
these witnesses, which may go to discredit their evidence.<\/p>\n
The witnesses had no ill-will, grudge or enmity against the<\/p>\n
accused, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, it can not be imagined that such a big haul of<\/p>\n
poppy husk, could be planted, against the accused, by the<\/p>\n
police party. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat<\/p>\n
AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story<\/p>\n
cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent<\/p>\n
witness had not been examined by it. It was further held that<\/p>\n
civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is<\/p>\n
committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from<\/p>\n
the victim’s side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable.<\/p>\n
Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between<\/p>\n
two individuals, and do not involve themselves in it. In State<\/p>\n
of NCT of Delhi versus Sunil (2000) ISCC 748, it was held<\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “It is an archaic notion that actions of
\n             the Police Officers should be approached with
\n             initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at
\n             least initial trust on the actions and the
\n             documents made by the Police.       At any rate, the
\n             Court can not start with the presumption that the
\n             Police records are untrustworthy.             As a
\n             proposition of law, the presumption should be the
\n             other way round.     The official acts of the Police
\n             have been regularly performed is a wise principle
\n             of presumption and recognized even by the
\n             Legislature”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10-A         The     principle of law, laid down, in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
case. On account of non-joining of an independent witness,<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution, did not become doubtful. The<\/p>\n
submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being<\/p>\n
without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
11.                It was next submitted by Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, that no investigation was conducted, in respect of<\/p>\n
the ownership of the house, where from the alleged recovery<\/p>\n
was effected. She further submitted that, as such, the<\/p>\n
accused-appellant could not be said to be in conscious
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the poppy husk, referred to above. The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard,<\/p>\n
does not appear to be correct.    The recovery, in this case,<\/p>\n
was effected, in pursuance of      the disclosure statement,<\/p>\n
made by the accused. The accused knew, as to where, he<\/p>\n
had concealed the bags, containing poppy husk.            The<\/p>\n
concealment of the bags of poppy husk was not in the<\/p>\n
knowledge of anybody else. The bags, containing poppy<\/p>\n
husk, were in the exclusive knowledge of the accused.<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, the Investigating agency was not<\/p>\n
required to conduct any investigation, with regard to the<\/p>\n
ownership of the house, from where the recovery of poppy<\/p>\n
husk was got effected. Had the recovery of poppy husk<\/p>\n
been effected, from an open and accessible place and had<\/p>\n
the bags been not concealed, and had the same been visible<\/p>\n
to everybody, the matter would have been different. The<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Mohd Alam<\/p>\n
Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau and<\/a> another 1996 Crl.<\/p>\n
L.J. 2001 ( SC ) in support of her contention. The facts of<\/p>\n
the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable, from the facts<\/p>\n
of the instant case. In the aforesaid case, the recovery was<\/p>\n
not effected, in pursuance of the disclosure statement, made<\/p>\n
by the accused. The recovery was effected, from a house, as<\/p>\n
a result of the general search on receipt of a secret<\/p>\n
information.    The investigating agency had failed to
\n                  Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
investigate into the matter, as to who was the owner of the<\/p>\n
house, from where the recovery of contraband was effected<\/p>\n
in pursuance of the general search. It was, under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, and keeping in view the other facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances prevailing therein, that the appellant      was<\/p>\n
acquitted.       The facts of the aforesaid case being<\/p>\n
distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, no help<\/p>\n
can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being<\/p>\n
without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
12.                 It was next submitted by the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant that only one sample of poppy husk, was<\/p>\n
taken from each bag. She further submitted that as per the<\/p>\n
requirement of law, two samples were required to be taken<\/p>\n
out of each bag. She further submitted that, on account of<\/p>\n
this reason, the case of the prosecution became doubtful.<\/p>\n
She placed reliance      Chhabil Das v. State of Haryana<\/a><\/p>\n
1998(1)RCR (Criminal) 133 (P&H), a case decided by a<\/p>\n
Single Bench of this Court. In the said case, it was observed<\/p>\n
that two samples were required to be taken , whereas only<\/p>\n
one sample was taken. Even the mandatory provisions of<\/p>\n
Sections 50, 52, 55 and 42 had not been complied with in<\/p>\n
the said case.     Taking into consideration, the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances, prevailing therein, this Court came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case,
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
against the appellant, and, as such, he was acquitted. It may<\/p>\n
be stated here, that the facts of the aforesaid authority, are<\/p>\n
clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
Even otherwise,there is no mandatory requirement of law,<\/p>\n
to the effect, that two samples from the poppy husk, were<\/p>\n
required to be taken. The samples are taken with a view to<\/p>\n
send the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner, to<\/p>\n
find out, as to whether, the same are of contraband or not.<\/p>\n
In this case, the Chemical Examiner, after        testing the<\/p>\n
contents of the contraband, came to the conclusion, that the<\/p>\n
same constituted poppy husk. The Chemical Examiner did<\/p>\n
not find the contents of the samples to be insufficient for<\/p>\n
analysis. Once the Chemical Examiner found the contents<\/p>\n
of the samples, to be sufficient, for analysis, the question<\/p>\n
whether one sample was taken or two samples were taken,<\/p>\n
was hardly of any consequence. No help can be drawn, by<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. The submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
13.                       It was next submitted by the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, that there was a delay of nine<\/p>\n
days, in sending the samples, to the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner, which remained unexplained, as a result whereof,<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution, became doubtful. The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard,
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
does not appear to be correct. Mere delay, in sending the<\/p>\n
samples, in itself, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion,<\/p>\n
that the link evidence was incomplete. In the absence of any<\/p>\n
explanation regarding delay, the Court is required to place<\/p>\n
reliance upon the other evidence produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution. The other evidence produced, on record, by the<\/p>\n
prosecution, which has been held to be cogent, convincing,<\/p>\n
reliable, and trustworthy, is sufficient to prove, that none-<\/p>\n
tampered with the samples, until the same reached the office<\/p>\n
of the Chemical Examiner. Had no other evidence been<\/p>\n
produced, in this regard, the matter would have been<\/p>\n
different. In this view of the matter, mere delay, in sending<\/p>\n
the samples to the Laboratory, did not at all, either affect the<\/p>\n
merits of the case, or make the link evidence incomplete, in<\/p>\n
any manner. In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1)<\/p>\n
RCR (Criminal) 196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in<\/p>\n
sending the sample to the Laboratory, is not fatal, where<\/p>\n
there is evidence that the sealed articles remained in safe<\/p>\n
custody. In Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab<\/p>\n
2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 343, which was a case relating to<\/p>\n
the recovery of 4 Kgs. of opium, the samples were sent to<\/p>\n
the office of the Chemical Examiner, after 23 days. All the<\/p>\n
samples were intact. In these circumstances, it was held<\/p>\n
that, in the face of other cogent, convincing, reliable, and<\/p>\n
trustworthy evidence, produced by the prosecution, to prove
\n                 Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
the completion of link evidence, it could not be held that the<\/p>\n
possibility of tampering with the samples, could not be ruled<\/p>\n
out.   The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, delay of nine days in sending<\/p>\n
the samples was hardly of any consequence. The submission<\/p>\n
of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14.                 The Counsel for the appellant, however,<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 2006<\/p>\n
(2) RCR (Criminal) in support of her contention that delay<\/p>\n
in sending the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner,<\/p>\n
must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. In that case<\/p>\n
there was a delay of 13 days, in sending the samples to the<\/p>\n
office of the Chemical Examiner. From the other evidence,<\/p>\n
it was not proved that the samples remained untampered<\/p>\n
with until the same reached the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner. It was, under these circumstances, and taking into<\/p>\n
consideration the other circumstances of the case, that this<\/p>\n
Court had held that the link evidence was incomplete. In the<\/p>\n
face of the principle of law, laid down in State of Orissa’s<\/p>\n
case ( supra ), decided by the Apex Court, the principle of<\/p>\n
law laid down, to the contrary in Darshan Singh’s case<\/p>\n
( supra ), would not hold the field. No help can be drawn,<\/p>\n
by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. The submission
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that the seal after use, in this case, was not handed<\/p>\n
over to an independent witness. It may be stated here that, in<\/p>\n
the instant case, no independent witness could be joined<\/p>\n
and, as such, the question of handing over the seal to him,<\/p>\n
did not at all arise.      Had any independent witness been<\/p>\n
joined, and the seal after use, had not been given to him, the<\/p>\n
matter would have been different.       The Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, however, placed reliance on Balwinder Singh<\/p>\n
alias Billa v. State of Punjab 1999(3) RCR (Criminal)<\/p>\n
117 , in support of her contention. Balwinder Singh alias<\/p>\n
Billa’s case (supra )       related to the decision of a bail<\/p>\n
petition, and not to the decision of an appeal. No invariable<\/p>\n
principle of law, was laid down, therein, that if the seal after<\/p>\n
use, is not given to an independent witness, the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution becomes doubtful. No help can be drawn by the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, from the aforesaid case. The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without<\/p>\n
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
16.                No other point, was urged, by the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                     Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997
\n                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
      17.               In view of the above discussion, it<\/p>\n
     is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of<\/p>\n
     sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the<\/p>\n
     correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point.<\/p>\n
     The same do not warrant any interference. The same<\/p>\n
     are liable to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
      18.               For     the    reasons     recorded,<\/p>\n
     hereinbefore, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment<\/p>\n
     of conviction and the order of sentence dated<\/p>\n
     22.04.1997, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his<\/p>\n
     bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
     Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance<\/p>\n
     with the provisions of law, to comply with the<\/p>\n
     judgment, with due promptitude.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (SHAM SUNDER)
\n                                                     JUDGE
\nJuly 23, 2008
\ndinesh\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 378-SB of 1997 Date of decision. 23.07.2008 Dilawar Singh @ Kala son of Narang Singh son of Waryam Singh, agriculturist, r\/o village Dogarpur, […]<\/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-189753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSingh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-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=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-13T20:49:03+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\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-13T20:49:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3628,\"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\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-13T20:49:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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":"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-13T20:49:03+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\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-13T20:49:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":3628,"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\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","name":"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-13T20:49:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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\/189753","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=189753"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189753\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}