Gurmeet Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRA-S-2139-SB-2011
!" ! # GURMEET SINGH
STATE OF PUNJAB
$ %&$ '( ' ) *****
"#
$ %
& '
( ))))) ( ' )+ , -./ * +!
-.-./-** (0 ! 1&%
2&
&3 (4!(0
(
% %& , ,
40
/- ---5
0,
& !& %6 !,
! ,, &
*7 !$
*87
(
%96$*8.
-.-./--7% &
*7 $
*87
( 2.
: 0
! &
n 07.07.2005, Ram Parkash, along with other Police officials, was going from Malout to Lambi bypass for patrolling. When they crossed the railway line and reached
0/ the katcha path leading to village Tharajwala, they noticed a person sitting in the cotton fields with an open plastic bag. On seeing the police, he became perplexed and tried to run away, but he was apprehended. On inquiry, the person disclosed his name as Gurmeet Singh, resident of village Lakkarwala. The plastic bag in his possession was checked and found to contain poppy husk. The accused was informed of his legal right to have his search conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but he expressed confidence in the police officer and consented to the search. During the search, 20 kilograms of poppy husk along with a glass tumbler were recovered from the plastic bag. Out of the recovered poppy husk, 250 grams was taken as a sample, sealed separately, and the remaining poppy husk was also sealed.
Necessary documents such as the consent memo, recovery memo, and Form M-29 were prepared. Since the accused could not produce any license or permit for possessing the poppy husk, a case was registered against him under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused was arrested and the case property was deposited with the SHO and later produced before the SDJM, Malout, who verified the inventory and sealed the case property. The sample was then sent to the Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh. After receiving the report and completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court against the accused under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 3.
On presentation of the challan against the appellant before the competent Court, copies of the same were supplied to the appellant. The appellant was charge-sheeted accordingly to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
0 !
!
& &
4 ! %&
% 0 (0
2& %% ! !
!
(
7 ! &
2&
% (!
&(,
! ;
4
!
%
,
!
0
%&,
! <&
&,
=
;
4 &
-7*//-** =
! 96
!
!
( %
!0 /--7
0 ,
/-0 !
! +!
!
% 0
% ,
/- 0
!
0 & %
,
>,
!&
-/0 6 & !
!
% &%%
, & ! &
4 , ? @ ! !!
!
& 4!
&(,
(!
!
%&
&
!
& & 0
! ! %&
!&%! %
(
%
(&%!
&
6 & !
! ,,
(0
&
&
! ,
%
+!
& &(,
& ! 4& 4 %
& ,
,
'&
=
,
<&
&
!,
( ,
0
&
& !
&
,
&(
& 4 . 6!
! &
!
!
% !&%!
%
& ! !
%
,
! !
& (
%%
%+! & !& 0
&
<&
&, &
!,
8 +! = A( &, 2&
! ,
(
&
!,
,&
(
4
%
(& ,
,
%
!
0 6 4 & ! !
,& ( ,
(0
%
&
&
&,
! ! ; 3%&
% ,
,
!
!
,,&
0
! 2&
> '&
4! ,&
0 ! %
,
,& ((
&
'&
( !
& ,
*- +! & ,
& ,
( & ,
&
B ! <& ! , ,,
(0 ,
!
!
,
!
( +! ,(0
( % !2& >
,
%!
, +!
0!
(
07
,
! ! 4!
,
,,
!
( >
**
'&%( ! !&,2& !
! " #!
-2-3! '
4", /+(
!
%
%
! &
!
>!
&
!4
&
&,
!&
& ! ,
% 6
!
, 0&%% (
&
!
,&
% &
,
%
0
,
%
+!2& & !
0
% ,
% &
,
,!
!
%
%&
!,
,& &
&,
!
&
%!
'
3 ,&
(&
*/ On the issue of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483, is being referred to wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, 4 months and 16 days, by considering that the occurrence took place in 1997 and he was not a habitual offender, rather a first-time convict.
* +! = ;( &, 2&
$ %% # & '( (
0?
! "
#$ % &
'
()*+),)-.. )/01)*+)-..(.,))23"
* +!
0
!4!
'&
4&
,
!
&
(&
!6 ! &
!'&% 3
,
!&,
&
(&
! !
! ,43 4
4!
!
&
! 4
4
! ! 4 (
*7
!
! ,
&,
& (0 &
!
& & 0 % 0
/-0 : !!
0& %
& 0 ,
>,
!&
40 +!
(&
!
3 +! ,
!4
& %
0 !
!
(
=!
!&!4 ,
0 *? +!
2& !
&
,
&,
>
!
! ,
,
!
& ( &
&,
0. *. +
& (0
6 !& ,
2-.6 ..7 8 2 D!
!
,
+!
(0 !1&%
2&
&3
-.-./-** ,
& ! 0 % ,( ' )/ $ + ! # 4- D! !
%5
E5$ D! !
( E5$