Bikramjit Singh @ Bika v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Appeal No.S-223-SB of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 19, 2016 Bikramjit Singh alias Bika ...Appellant

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.P.S.Grewal,Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby the appellant was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as noted down in the judgment passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, are as under:- "2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.1.2013, ASI

-2Devinder Singh IO was posted as I/C PP Basant Avenue, P.S.Sadar and on that day he alongwith HC Devinder Singh, HC Satinderpal Singh were present at Katcha road Dhandra towards Roop nagar, Basant Avenue on private car in connection with patrolling and checking of antisocial elements and accused was seen coming from the side of Village Dhandra, who was having bag on his left shoulder and he had tied parna on his head and who on seeing the police party suddenly turned back. He was apprehended by IO ASI Devinder Singh with the help of other police officials.

IO disclosed his identity to accused and told that he suspects some contraband in his presence and apprised him of his legal right to get the search conducted in the presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted officer or they can be also called at the spot, but the accused reposed faith in IO as such consent memo Ex.PA was prepared which was witnessed by HC Davinder Singh and HC Satinder pal Singh. The search of the bag yielded poppy husk, out of which two samples of 250 Gm each were separated and were converted into sample parcels. The remaining poppy husk on weighment came out to be 24 Kg 500 Gm which was converted into bulk parcel. Both the sample as well as bulk parcels were sealed by IO with the seal bearing impression 'DS' and he prepared the sample seal chit EX.P1, and seal after use was handed to HC Davinder Singh.

Thereafter, case property alongwith the specimen seal slip was taken into possession vide memo EX.PB. Thence, IO sent ruqa EX.PC to police station through PHG Murta Singh on the basis of which FIR EX.PA/1 was lodged by SI Karnail Singh. Then IO inspected the spot and prepared site plan EX.PD and accused was arrested vide memo EX.PF and intimation was also prepared and nothing was recovered on personal search of the accused which was conducted vide memo EX.PF. Io also recorded the statement of witnesses.

3. On return to police station, IO produced the case property, accused and witnesses before SI Karnail Singh who was officiating SHO, who after being satisfied affixed his seal bearing impression 'KS' on the whole case property and on specimen seal slips. Thereafter, IO deposited the case property with with MHC Rakesh Kumar."

After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. On presentation of challan against

-3accused-appellant, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, the accused-appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 SI Karnail Singh, Officiating SHO, PW-2 ASI Jasdev Singh, PW-3 ASI Devinder Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-4 ASI Devinder Singh, recovery witness and PW-5 MHC Rakesh Kumar.

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accusedappellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution and he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. No witness was examined in defence.

The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued mainly on one point that no independent witness was joined by the police party and there are only testimonies of police officials, which cannot be believed. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant, prayed for reduction of sentence.

On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the PWs. The PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. Link evidence is complete. He further argued that all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with. Learned State

-4counsel, therefore, argued that there being no merit in the appeal, the same should be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and after going through the record, I find that it is settled law that the testimony of police official is as good as of any other witness unless some enmity or motive of the police official to falsely implicate the accused is alleged and proved. In the present case, no such enmity of the police officials against the accused has been alleged. No defence evidence has been produced by the accused. The police party was on patrolling duty and the recovery from the accused is sudden and by chance. There was no opportunity with the police party to join the independent witness. No material contradictions or discrepancies have been pointed out in the statements of the PWs at the time of arguments. The PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version.

Even, there is nothing in their cross-examinations, which may make their statements unreliable. All the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with. Link evidence is also complete. In view of the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Luldhiana, is correct, as per law and does not require any interference from this Court.

As regarding the alternative prayer for reducing the

-5sentence, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant is first offender, only bread earner of the family and the recovery from the appellant falls under non-commercial quantity and the appellant is suffering from criminal proceedings since 2013. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that appellant poor person, only bread earner of the family and is suffering from long protracted criminal proceedings since 2013 i.e. for the last about 3 years and further in view of the fact that appellant has already undergone imprisonment of 10 months and 26 days out of the total sentence and keeping in view the fact the recovery from the accused-appellant falls under noncommercial quantity i.e. 25 kgs.

poppy husk, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine and in default sentence will remain the same. The appellant is directed to pay the fine within one month from receiving the certified copy of the order, if already not paid, otherwise, the trial Court is directed to take necessary action as per law.

Accordingly, present criminal appeal stands partly allowed. Since, appellant Bikramjit Singh @ Bika is on bail, his bail/surety bonds stand discharged.

May 19, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE