CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 1 State vs.
Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT, SANGRUR.
(Unique Identification Code PB 0051).
NDPS No.42 dated 24.08.2018.
Decided on …........09.07.2019.
State Versus 1. Makhan Singh son of Late Mohinder
Singh, resident of Lehal-Kalan
2. Rinku son of Mithu, resident of
Beharsahib, [Link].
…….Accused.
FIR No.21 of 30.01.2018
Under Section 22/61/85 of the ND&PS Act, 1985
Police Station Dirba.
Present: Shri Kanwardeep Singh Saini Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State
Accused Makhan Singh on bail with counsel [Link]
Advocate.
Accused Rinku in custody with counsel Shri [Link]
Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Makhan Singh and Rinku (hereinafter to be referred
to as accused) are undergoing trial in this case under Section 22/61/85 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred
to as the Act) for having been found in illegal possession of 1800
intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam having batch [Link]-740 Mfd. Dated 11-
2017 exp. Dated 10.2019 and 1140 intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam having
batch no. PCCAA-284 Mfd. Dated 10.2017 Ex. dated 09,2020 respectively
and without any licence or permit on 30.01.2018 at about 4:15 P.M. in the
area of Dirba.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 2 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
2. Prosecution story is to the effect that on 30.01.2018, ASI
Jaspal Chand CIA Bahadur Singh Wala (hereinafter to be referred to as
Investigating Officer/I.O.), along with ASI Avtar Singh (hereinafter to be
referred to as recovery witness), ASI Bahadur Singh Singh, C. Gurpreet
Singh, C. Manpreet Singh Singh were going from Dirba towards village
Rogla Kauhriyan side on a private vehicle having registration no. PB-
13AV-2734 along with laptop and printer in the course of patrol duty and
checking of suspected persons. When the police party reached 200 yards
ahead of [Link] Pump in the revenue limits of village Dirba, at about
4:15 P.M., two persons were seen coming on foot from the side of drain
while carrying 1/1 plastic lifafa (bag) in their right hand. On seeing the
police party, he became perplexed and tried to turn back. SI Jaspal Chand
apprehended the accused with the help of other police officials. Upon
inquiry, first person accused disclosed himself to be Makhan Singh son of
Mohinder Singh, resident of village Lahal Kaan, [Link] and other
person disclosed himself to be as Rinku son of Mithu resident of village
Beharsahib, [Link], District Patiala. ASI also disclosed his name,
identity and designation to both the accused and informed him that he
suspected them to be carrying some contraband Narcotic substance in the
plastic bag carried by both of them and thus wanted to search them along
with plastic bags carried by both of them. He also apprised him regarding
their statutory right to be searched by some Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate, who can even be called at the spot. Since both the accused did
not repose confidence in the SI, and their non consent memos Ex.P1 and
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 3 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
Ex.P2 were prepared, which were signed by both the accused and
witnessed by ASI Avtar Singh along with C. Gurpreet Singh.
3. Thereafter, I.O. informed Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma DSP,
Sub Divison Dirba on his mobile phone and requested him to visit at the
spot. At about 5:00 P.M. DSP Yogesh Kumar Sharma came at the spot in
the Government vehicle and he informed the DSP about the present case
and thereafter,DSP Sh Yogesh Kumar Sharma told both the accused about
his identity regarding his name, rank and posting and told them that he had
suspicion that some contraband in the plastic lifafas carried by them and he
wanted to conduct their search and search of their plastic bags. DSP also
apprised both the accused about their legal right to get conduct their search
along with the plastic liffafas in the presence of another Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate and they can be called at the spot. Upon which both the accused
reposed confidence in DSP and got recorded their consent statement Ex.P3
and Ex.P4, which was witnessed by SI Jaspal Chand along with C Gurpeet
Singh and ASI Avtar Singh and signed by both the accused respectively.
4. On the instructions of the DSP, SI Jaspal Chand conducted the
search of plastic liffafa carried by accused Makhan Singh from which
another black coloured lifafa was found and on opening the liffafa 180
strips of intoxicant tablets make ALPRAZOLAM having 10/10 tablets in
each strip having Batch No TPT_740 Mfg. date 11.2017 Exp. date 10.2019
( total 1800 tablets ) were recovered. The recovered tablets were converted
into a separate parcel and they were sealed with the seal of the I.O. Jaspal
Chand bearing impression “JC”. Thereafter, SI Jaspal Chand conducted
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 4 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
the search of plastic lifafa carried by the accused Rinku, from which
another black coloured lifafa was found and on opening the liffafa 114
stripts of intoxicant tablets make ALPRAZOLAM having 10/10 tablets in
each strip Batch No PCCAA284 having Mfg. date 10.2017 Exp. date
09.2020 ( total 1140 tablets ) were recovered. The recovered tablets were
converted into a separate parcel and were sealed with the seal of JC by the
I.O. Jaspal Chand. Seal after used was handed over to ASI Avtar Singh.
Sample seals were prepared by I.O. on form no 29 Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. Both
the bulk parcels were also sealed by DSP Sh Yogesh Kumar Sharma with
his seal bearing impression YK along with the sample seals. The case
property was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P8 and same was
witnessed by the above said witnesses. From the personal search of accused
Makhan Singh currency notes of Rs.150/ were recovered, which were
taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P8/A. From the personal
search of accused Rinku, currency notes of Rs 200/- were recovered,
which were taken into police possession vide memoEx.P8/B. Thereafter,
I.O. sent ruqa Ex.P9 through C Manpreet singh on the basis of FIR Ex.P10
was registered by SI Baljit Singh. I.O prepared rough site plan Ex.P11 with
correct marginal notes. Both the accused were arrested vide arrest-cum
intimation memo Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. Special report Ex.P14 was prepared
at the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
5. On return to the police station, I.O produced the accused,
witnesses and the case property before Inspector Pushpinder Singh
SHO, P.S. Dirba, who after verified the facts from the witnesses and
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 5 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
accused and perused the case property and after his satisfaction, he
affixed his seal on the case property and sample seals with his seal
bearing impressions PS and then he directed the I.O. to deposit the case
property with MHC Karnail Singh, Malkhana Munshi of PS, Dirba
and accused were sent to police lock up.
6. On the next day, i.e. 31.01.2018, I.O. withdrew the case
property from MHC and produced the same along with the accused before
[Link] Kumar Singla, the learned JMIC, Sunam vide application
Ex.P16. Order Ex.P19 having been passed by the learned Magistrate, two
strips were taken out from each bulk parcels after breaking its seal. The
case property was re-sealed with the seal of the Court bearing impression
MKS. Due to non availability of zimny order, the case property could not
be deposited in Judicial Malkhana Sangrur on that day. On return to the
police station, I.O. deposited the case property with MHC. On 01.02.2018,
the case property were produced before the learned CJM, Sangrur, vide
application Ex.P20. Vide order Ex.P21, the learned CJM, Sangrur sought
the report of Malkhana Nair, who made his report Ex.P22 that there is no
space in Judicial Malkhana Sangrur. On the basis of report learned CJM,
Sangrur passed the order Ex.P23, vide which two representative sample
parcels having batch nos. TPT-740 and PCCAA284 sealed with seal
bearing impressions MKS were ordered to be deposited in Judicial
Malkhana Sangrur and remaining case property i.e. both bulk parcels were
ordered to be deposited in police police in safe custody. On return to the
police station, I.O. Jaspal Chand deposited the case property with
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 6 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
Malkhana Munshi MHC Karnail Singh.
7. On 05.02.2018, MHC Karnail Singh produced before
Inspector Pushpinder Singh two sample parcels sealed with seal bearing
MKS, upon which he put both the parcels in another parcel and the parcel
was sealed with by Inspector Pushpinder Singh with his sealed bearing
impression PS. He affixed the secret code on the said parcel as 005/2018
for sending the same to FSL. Thereafter the said parcel was handed over
to C. Bittu Singh for depositing the same in the office of chemical examiner
laboratory, Phase-4, Mohali. This parcel was got deposited in the office of
chemical examiner on 06.02.2018. Upon receipt of chemical examiner
report Ex.P24 and upon completion of investigation, challan against the
accused was presented in the Court.
8. Copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C along with
relevant documents was supplied to the accused free of costs.
9. Finding a prima-facie case, charge under Section 22 of the Act
was framed against both the accused to they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW-1 MHC
Karnail Singh, who has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
9. PW-1 SI Jaspal Chand (Investigating Officer )has reiterated
the prosecution story as detailed above and has proved on record the
various documents as stated above and he also proved the case property
i.e. representative parcels as Ex.MO1 & Ex.MO2 and bulk pacels Ex.MO3
and [Link] identified both the accused present in the Court.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 7 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
11. PW-3 ASI Avtar (recovery witness) has deposed about the
arrest of the accused and the recovery effected from the accused. He
further deposed about the investigation conducted by I.O. SI Satnam Singh
and DSP Yogesh Kumar Sharma in his presence and he has proved the
documents as detailed above. He identified both the accused present in the
Court. He fully corroborated the version of PW-2 Jaspal Singh.
12. PW-4 Inspector Pushpinder Singh, SHO has deposed with
regard to the case property, accused and witnesses produced before him by
SI Jaspal Chand on 30.01.2018. He further stated with regard to having
affixed his seal bearing impression ‘PS’ on the parcels of case property. He
further deposed that on 05.02.2018 MHC Karnail Singh produced before
him two parcels sealed with seal bearing impression MKS, upon which he
put both the parcels in another parcel and the parcel was sealed by him with
his seal bearing impression PS. He affixed secret code on the said parcel as
005/2018 for sending the same to FSL. He identified both the accused
present in the Court.
13. PW-5 [Link] Singh has tendered into evidence his affidavit
Ex.PW5/A.
14. PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Sharma DSP has deposed on on
30.01.2018, he was posted as DSP Sub Division Dirba. On receipt of
telephonic call from SI Jaspal Chand, he reached at the spot. He further
deposed about the investigation conducted by him at the spot. He fully
corroborated the version of PW-2 Jaspal Chand and PW-3 ASI Avtar Singh.
15. Thereafter learned Addl. PP closed the prosecution evidence.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 8 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
16. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. All the incriminating evidence of
the prosecution was put to the accused. They denied the same and pleaded
false implication. Accused Rinku took a plea that he was picked up from
his shop in his village on 29.01.2018 in the presence of other villagers.
Nothing incriminating article was recovered from him. He was in illegal
police custody of [Link] for one day and thereafter he was falsely
implicated in this case. His father has moved application before the SSP
regarding his false implication in this case. Accused Makhan Singh took a
plea that he was never involved any criminal case earlier. He is
agriculturist and is a married person having two children. His daughter
namely Rajvir Kaur is student of B.A Final year. The name of his son is
Satgur Singh and is student. One lady namely Sewa Kaur wife of Jaila
Singh is his neigbourer and wall of the house of Sewa Kaur is adjoining
with his house. The above said lady was having relation with ASI
Randhir Singh who is the witness of present case and ASI Randhir Singh
generally visited the house of above said lady Sewa Kaur. Their family
along with him opposed the relation of Sewa Kaur and ASI Randhir
Singh was stopped so many times and ASI Randhir Singh having grudge
against him due to this reasons. He was arrested by ASI Randhir Singh
on 29.01.2018 when he was called in police station and he was handed
over to CIA Bahadur Singh Wala on 29.01.2018 and ASI Jaspal Chand
involved him in this case at the instance of ASI Randhir Singh. He has no
concern with co-accused Rinku present in the court. He has been falsely
involved in this case at the instance of Sewa Kaur by ASI Randhir Singh
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 9 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
and ASI Jaspal Chand. The tablets shown in this case were already lying
in CIA B.S Wala. He never touched and consumed any intoxicant.
17. In his defence the accused examined DW-1 Jagdev Singh,
who has deposed that he is numbardar of village Lehal Kalan from the
last 20 [Link] has proved his identity card as Mark A. He further
deposed that accused Makhan Singh belongs to his village and he never
involved any criminal case and is a married person having two minor
children. The elder daughter of Rajdeep Kaur is about 22 years and is a
student of B.A third year. The house of accused Makhan Singh is
adjoining with the house of one lady namely Sewa Kaur wife of Jaila
Singh of village Lehal Kalan. ASI Randhir Singh who generally visits
the house of this lady Sewa Kaur and having illicit relations with this
lady Sewa Kaur. Due to this reason the atmosphere of this area is
effected by the act of Sewa Kaur and ASI Randhir Singh. The children
of accused Makhan Singh are young and when accused Makhan Singh
stopped ASI Randhir Singh from this act and due to this grudge
accused Makhan Singh was arrested by the police on 28.01.2018 and
no incriminating article was recovered from Makhan singh at that
time. Accused Makhan Singh was brought in the police station Dirba
and false case was planted against the accused and false witnesses were
procured by ASI Jaspal Chand at the instance of ASI Randhir Singh in
this case. Accused Makhan Singh belongs to a respectable family and
he is having no relation with co-accused Rinku or the co-accused
Rinku never seen in the company of Rinku by the villagers or by him
and both are belonged to a different village. Makhan Singh never
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 10 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
touched and consume any intoxicant.
18. DW-2 Satgur Singh has fully corroborated the version of
DW-1.
19. DW-3 HC Harmesh Singh has brought the summoned record
i.e. register no. 19 of P.S Dirba entry no. 237 dated 30.01.2018 pertaining
to the present case. There is a cutting and over writing at Point A, B, C, D
and E in the register no. 19. He has proved the entry Ex.DW3/1. He has
proved DDR No.49 dated 30.01.2018, entry no.53 dated 30.01.2018
Ex.DW3/3 and entry no.54 dated 30.01.2018 as Ex.DW3/4.
20. DW-4 Rameshwar and DW-5 Harbans Lal have deposed that
on 29.01.2018 at about 2:30 pm, four police officials came to their village
in a car of white coloured and forcibly entered in the shop of Rinku son of
Mithu Singh and started search of the shop. In the meanwhile neighbourers
and village panchayat gathered there. During search nothing incriminating
article was recovered. Thereafter, the police officials took Rinku along
with them but when the village panchayat asked the police officials then the
police official disclosed that they want to inquire some facts of a case after
inquiry they will release within one or two hours and they took Rinky along
with them. On the next day, they came to know that police has falsely
implicated the accused in the present case. Accused Rinku was
apprehended from his shop after that father of the accused Rinku moved an
application to the higher authority with regard to the false implication and
his statement was also recorded by the DSP Dirba in this regard.
21. DW-6 Miss. Rajvir Kaur has deposed that accused Makhan
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 11 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
Singh present in the court is his father and they are two siblings. His
brother namely Satgur Singh is studying in Eleventh class at village Bhutal
Kalan. She is studying at Guru Teg Bahadur Lehar Khurad in Class B.A
final year. His father was having motorcycle from the year of 2017 bearing
registration no. PB13AZ6534. His father is an agriculturist and never
involved in any criminal case and they belong to a respectable family. His
father never touched or consumed any intoxicant. One lady namely Sewa
Kaur is their neighbourer and the police and defeated sarpanch Darshan
Singh generally visit the house of Sewa Kaur. His father and their family
generally opposed the visit of these persons and due to this grudge his
father was arrested by ASI Randhir Singh from their village and was
brought in P.S Moonak and then he was handed over to P.S Dirba. When
his father was arrested by the police from their village no incriminating
article was recovered from his father. ASI Randhir Singh procured false
witness of this case against his father and planted false case of tablets
against his father by ASI Jaspal Chand. Her father is innocent and she
proved the copy of R.C of motorcycle asa Ex.DW3/A, certified copy of the
education of his brother as Ex.DW3/B, Aadhar Card as Ex.DW3/C, my
certificate of 10th class is Ex.DW3/D, my certificate of +2 is Ex.DW3/E, his
Aadhar Card as Ex.DW3/F and Driving license of his father as Ex.DW3/G.
22. DW-7 HC Makhan Singh has brought the summoned record
moved by Mithu Ram son of Kapoor Chand, resident of village Bahar
Jachh Tehsil Patran District Patiala for the enquiry of present case. The said
application Ex.DW7/A was registered in their office bearing No.830/P
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 12 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
dated 01.02.2018. He has proved the copy of the application as
Ex.DW7/A.
23. DW-8 ASI Parveen Kumar has brought the summoned reocrd
i.e. log book of vehicle [Link]-13AR/9359 vide entry dated 30.01.2018. He
proved the same as Ex.DW8/A.
24.. I have heard the learned [Link] for the State and learned
defence counsel and perused the file in detail.
25. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued case of the
prosecution has been proved on file by the witnesses. Learned Addl. PP
further argued that witnesses were cross-examined at length but there is
no major discrepancy which can show that case of the prosecution is false.
Learned Addl. PP has further argued that minor discrepancy would bound
to occur when the witness was examined after length of time. Learned
Addl. PP has further argued that recovery is effected from both the
accused. Learned Addl. PP has further argued that there is no evidence led
by the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the present case
and has prayed for conviction of the accused. The learned [Link] has
relied upon the case law titled as Kasif vs. State NCT of Delhi, Crl. A
506/2018 and Crl.M (Bail) 711/2018, D/d 10.07.2018 , wherein it has
been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the DNA report was held
to be reliable and it was held that the scientific evidence” has proved
beyond doubt that the blood of the deceased was found in the Wagon R of
Kasif”. The discrepancy in mentioning of the car no.DL4CL-0332 instead
of DL 6CC-0332 in the FSL report was held to be “ minor clerical
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 13 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
mistake.... which is required to be ignored.
26. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that
there are major discrepancies in the cross-examination of prosecution
witnesses, which shows that the case of prosecution is false. Learned
defence counsel has further argued that no independent witness was joined
by the prosecution at the time of alleged recovery. Learned defence
counsel has further argued that all the prosecution witnesses have shattered
the prosecution case. Learned defence counsel has further argued that
PW-2 Jaspal Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that 178 strips
related to accused Makhan Singh were not sent to FSL for analysis, only
one strip having 10 tabets were sent to FSL for analysis. As per cross-
examination of PW-2, the accused has disclosed the name of the supplier
namely Gaurav, but the police never tried to arrest the said Gaurav.
Learned defence counsel has further argued that PW-2 has also deposed in
his cross-examination that when the non consent statement and consent
statement of accused were recorded and accused were holding bag in
their hand. When the lifafa was holding in their hand, he cannot sign
consent memo and non consent memo. Learned defence counsel has
further argued that it is not proved that the police party went to the spot or
not as number of the private vehicle was not mentioned and prayed for
acquittal of the accused. The learned defence counsel has relied upon the
case law titled as Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana 2019(1)
RCR (Criminal) 174, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court
that Appeal against conviction and sentence. Non joining of independent
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 14 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
witness while available. No resident of village was asked to join as witness
at time of search of car. Fact also creates doubt in prosecution version as to
why independent witness not joined in investigation of this case.
Although 15 villagers had gathered at the spot. Appeal allowed. Acquitted.
27. In State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, Crl. Appeal
No.556-DBA of 1999, D/o 06.01.2010, it has been held by the Hon'ble
High Court that recovery of Diazepam tablets. Appeal against acquittal.
1850 loose diazepam tablets were recovered in plastic dabba from accused.
Sample of 25 tablets was sent to laboratory. Report stated that 5 mg
diazepam found in each tablet. From 1850 tablets, total recovery of
Diazepam would be of 92.50 gm which is non commercial quantity.
Moreover prosecution failed to convince how the remaining tablets
presumed to be of Dizepam to the extent of 5 mg per tablet when loose
tablets were recovered and were not in form of strips. Held, no interference
warranted with order of acquittal.
28. In Kuldip Ram vs. State of Punjab, Criminal
Appeal no. 1007-SB of 1997, D/d 12.05.1998, it has been held by the
Hon'ble High Court that non compliance of -Recovery of poppy husk.
When police conducts a raid on the basis of an information and recovers
contraband and prior written information regarding raid is not sent to the
superior officer as required U/S 42. Accused is entitled to acquittal.
Investigation proceedings. S.I. when received secret information, he does
not send any information to the police station for registration of the case.
He prefers to associate an independent person and then he raids at the
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 15 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
Haveli, where A.S.P comes on receipt of wireless message. No copy of
wireless message has been placed at the receiving end. Cannot be said that
Section 42(1) has been complied with. Vitiating the recovery of poppy husk
and rendering the trial as illegal. Appellant acquitted.
29. In Jaswinder Singh and another vs. State of Punjab,
Criminal Appeal No. 682-SB of 2001, D/d 11.10.2012 , it has been
held by the Hon'ble High Court that sample drawn by DSP and sealed.
Seal after use not handed over to independent witness who was available
with the police. Seal kept by the DSP, but case property handed over to S.I..
So, there was every possibility of tampering with the samples and the case
property as the DSP is the supervisory officer of the concerned police
station. Conviction set aside, inter alia, on this ground.
30. In Dharambir vs. State, CRL.A No.658 of 2017, D/d
13.11.2018, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Denial
of right by accused. Search of person. Non compliance of provisions. In
view of case 2018 SCC On Line SC 459, mandates compliance with
Section 50, even in a case where accused denies facility of search by a
Gazetted Officer or in presence of a Magistrate. Held, search and seizure
of accused and car in which he was travelling, alleged recovery of opium,
there from, as well as all proceedings, consequent thereupon, stand vitiated
in toto. Therefore, conviction and sentence set aside.
31. In the present case, two accused namely Makhan Singh and
Rinku are facing trial U/s 22 of NDPS Act on the allegations that accused
Makhan Singh was found in illegal possession of 1800 intoxicant tablets
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 16 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
of Alprazolam having batch [Link]-740 Mfd. Dated 11-2017 exp. Dated
10.2019 and accused Rinku was found in illegal possession of 1140
intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam having batch no. PCCAA-284 Mfd. Dated
10.2017 Ex. dated 09,2020 without any licence or permit on 30.01.2018
at about 4:15 P.M. in the area of Dirba.
32. As already stated above, the occurrence took place on
30.01.2018 when the police party was going from Dirba towards village
rogla Kauhriyan side. At about 4:15 P.M. in the revenue limits of Dirba
two persons were seen coming on foot from the side of drain while carrying
1/1 plastic lifafa (bag) in their right hand. On seeing the police party, he
became preplexed and tried to turn back. SI Jaspal Chand apprehended
them with the help of other police officials . Upon inquiry, they told their
names as Makhan Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village Lahal
Kaan, [Link] and Rinku son of Mithu resident of village Beharsahib,
[Link], District Patiala. PW-2 SI Jaspal Chand Investigating Officer
has proved the entire case. In his cross-examination conducted by learned
defence counsel accused Makhan Singh, he admitted that 178 Strips
related to accused Makhan were not sent to FSL for examination, only one
strip having 10 tablets was sent to FSL for examination. Place of recovery
is about 35/40 Kms. from CIA Staff. The accused disclosed the name of
the supplier namely Gaurav during the course of investigation. The police
never raided his house as the accused did not disclose the entire address of
the above said person. During his investigation the statement of owner of
any medical store or company were not recorded. During his inquiry it is
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 17 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
not ascertained about the strips to whom these were supplied to the medical
store or by which company or these were issued to which medical stroe or
dealer. Copies of grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused persons
at about 9:15 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. When non consent statement and consent
statement was recorded the lifafa bag was in the hand of the accused
persons. He admitted that DSP Yogesh Kumar Sharma is the circle
officer of [Link] on that day. This witness was cross-examined by
learned defence counsel of accused Rinku and has deposed recovery memo
was prepared at about 7:00 P.M.. They were having private car make
Tiyago. He did not remember the number of the vhicle was mentioned in
the DDR or not. The place of recovery is about ¾ Kms. From [Link]
towards easter side. They remained at the spot for about 6.15 hours. There
was no inverter fitted in their private car. Consent statement of accused
was recorded from 04:15 to 4:45 P.M. Accused persons were not known to
him earlier.
33. PW-3 SI Avtar Singh (recovery witness has also proved the
recovery effected from the accused. In his cross-examination he has stated
that ASI Jaspal Chand is complainant of the present case and investigation
of this cae was conducted by ASI Jaspal Chand. The memos and
statements of witnesses were typed by [Link] Singh as per dictation of
Jaspal Chand. The statement of C. Gurpreet Singh was got recorded by the
I.O. and it was typed by C. Gurpreet Singh himself.
34. PW-4 Inspector Pushpinder Singh has also proved the case of
prosecution in his examination in chief. In his cross-examination he has
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 18 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
stated that investigation regarding production of case property before him
was ASI Jaspal Chand and his statement was typed by C. Gurpreet Singh.
35. PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Sharma DSP has also proved the
prosecuton case in his examination in chief. In his cross-examination, he
has stated that he has received the information of this case at about 4:45
P.M. on his mobile phone bearing No.80545-45009. He admitted that as
per mobile location he was present in his office at Sular Gharat.
36. DW-1 Jagdev Singh in his examination in chief has stated that
he is numbardar of village Lehal Kalan from last 20 years. Accused
Makhan Singh belong to his village and he never involved any criminal
case . He is married person having two minor children. The house of
accused Makhan Singh is adjoining with the house of one lady namely
Sewal Kaur. ASI Randhir Singh was having illicit relation with said Sewa
Kaur. Due to this reason the atmosphere of the area is effected by the act
of Sewa Kaur and ASI Randhir Singh. Accused Makhan Singh stopped
ASI Randhir Singh from this act and due to this grudge, he has entangled
the accused Makhan Singh in the present case. In his cross-examination he
has stated that he cannot tell the date when the acused was arrested. No
resolution was passed by the village Panchayat with respect to the false
implciation of the accused Makhan Singh. No complaint was moved before
the SSP or hight police officials. No resolution was passed by the village
Panchayat that Sewa Kaur was having illicit relation with ASI Randhir
Singh.
37. DW-2 Satgur Singh has corroborated the statement of DW-1.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 19 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
In his cross-examination he has stated that accused Makhan Singh is his
uncle. He cannot tell the date when the accused was taken by the police.
He cannot tell from where the accused was arrested by the police. He
cannot tell whether the accused was arrested from his house. No resolution
was passed by the panchayat regarding the visit of ASI to the house of
Sewa Kaur.
38. The learned defence counsel during arguments brought to the
notice that in Ex.P24 chemical examiner report dated 25.04.2018 it is
mentioned that in reference number parcel bearing secret code no.005/2017
is mentioned. Learned defence counsel has argued that this FSL report is
not of this case as it is of the year 2017. this arguments of learned defence
counsel is without any force as in Subject FIR No.21 dated 30.01.2018
U/S 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, [Link] is mentioned and date of receipt is
shown as 06.02.2018. The learned [Link] has relied upon the case law
titled as Kasif vs. State NCT of Delhi, in which it is mentioned that
the discrepancy in mentioning of the car no.DL4CL-0332 instead of DL
6CC-0332 in the FSL report was held to be “ minor clerical mistake....
which is required to be ignored. So mentioning of secret code 005/2017 is
merely clerical mistake and report of FSL cannot be ignored.
39 The accused has examined DW-1 Jagdev Singh and DW-2
Satgur Singh to prove that the house of accused Makhan Singh is adjoining
with the house of one lady namely Sewa Kaur. ASI Randhir Singh was
having illicit relation with said Sewa Kaur. Accused Makhan Singh used
to stop ASI Randhir Singh and due to this reason accused Makhan Singh
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 20 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
has been involved in the present case. This defence has no use to the
accused persons as no application has been moved by accused with regard
to the conduct of ASI Randhir Singh before the higher officers. There is no
evidence led by the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the
present case.
40. Another point has been argued that the police party were on
private vehicle, but no entry in this regard is made in the DDR. PW-2 SI
Jaspal Chand in his examination in chief has got mentioned the vehicle
number as PB-13AV-2734 and number of the vehicle was also mentioned
in the report U/S 173 Cr.P.C., so there is no ground to acquit the accused on
this point. The recovery from both the accused has been moved moved
by PW-2 SI Jaspal Chand and PW-3 ASI Avtar Singh. Although there are
discrepancies in the cross-examination of these witnesses, but these
discrepancies are not of such nature from which it can be presumed that
a false case has been registered against both the accused. PW-6 DSP
Yogesh Kumar Sharma went to the spot at the time of recovery. He was
cross-examined at length, but there is no discrepancy which can show that
the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. So in view of
the fact that recovery agaisnt both the accused were proved by PW-2
Jaspal Chand, PW-3 ASI Avtar Singh and PW-6 DSP Yogesh Kumar
Sharma.
41. In this case, 180 Strips of Alprazol (each strip containing 10
tablets) were recovered from accused Makhan Singh. As per report of
FSL, the average weight of each tablet being 106 mg and each tablet
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 21 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
contained 0.45 mg of Alprazolam . Thus, the recovered 1800 tablets of
Alprazol would contain 190.8 gram of Alprazolam, which falls under
commercial range. In this case, 114 Strips of Alprazolam (each strip
containing 10 tablets) were recovered from the accused Rinku. As per
report of FSL, the average weight of each tablet being 122 mg and each
tablet contained 0.46 mg of Alprazolam . Thus, the recovered 1140
tablets of Alprazolam would contain 120.8 gram of Alprazolam, which
falls under commercial range. So it is clear that persons like the accused
are changing the fabric of youth of the country and they are selling the
drugs to the different people which is destroying the future of youth.
Accordingly, the accused Makhan Singh and Rinku stand convicted U/S
22 of NDPS Act. Let they be heard on the quantum of sentence in later part
of the day.
Pronounced in the open Court. (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Dated : 09.07.2019 Judge Special Court,
Mamta Threja, Judgment-writer-I Sangrur.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 22 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
ORDER OF SENTENCE
Quantum of Sentence
Present: Shri Kanwardeep Singh Saini, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Convicts with counsel [Link] Advocate and
[Link] Advocate. .
I have heard the convict and her counsel on the question of
sentence. The convicts have that they are only bread winner of their
respective family and have small children and prayed that lenient view be
taken. Keeping in view the quantity of contraband recovered from the
convict, which is of commercial range, the convict is sentenced as under
Makhan Singh U/S 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(one lac) and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo RI for two years.
Rinku U/S 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(one lac) and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo RI for two years.
The period of detention already consumed in jail by the
convict shall be deducted from the substantive sentence. The case property
be disposed of under rules after the expiry of period of appeal or revision, if
any. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in the open Court. (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
09.07.2019 Judge Special Court,
Mamta Threja, Stengrapher-Gr.1 Sangrur.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 23 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
Present: Shri Kanwardeep Singh Saini Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State
Accused Makhan Singh on bail with counsel [Link]
Advocate.
Accused Rinku in custody with counsel Shri [Link]
Advocate
Accused closed their defence evidence. Arguments heard. Vide
separate detailed judgment of even date, the accused are convicted U/S 22
of NDPS Act. File be consigned to the record.
Pronounced in the open Court.
(Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Dated : 09.07.2019 Judge Special Court,
Mamta Threja, Steno-Gr.1 Sangrur.
I attest to the
authenticity
of this
document
Digitally
MAMTA signed by
MAMTA
THREJA THREJA
Date:
2019.07.09
[Link]
+0000