Kashmir Singh v. State Of Punjab
!
"#$#%$&'( #$
))
* +
!" # $ #% ## # & ''''
, ( $##
# )*(+)+(*,- #$
().)+((
/0 11 ).())+(+ 2, ##
# )) 3
, (451! ,6 7%8
(8 (+ 9 2 #:#7 2 , # ; !(+% , , < #8!( ++ +++=>% #2 , "#-'&%./#$ &0-' ) ? ##2 < ).())+(+ &
0 !
@>A% #
2 # # 2 #
# #
B>*($>4*A1 , #
;$##
, ##
3##2# # 8 ## CB @## , 2 8# ## 3##2# ,
,
#
; 2 8
##, 8
C
# , #, <
&
0!
@>A% 2## #0 9 22
#, 2 2 9 2 8 @ 8 #
&
! >## % 2 2 ,2 ##C 8
#,
9 2!
#:#%2 < 2 (+ 2 2 # ### 9 # #
2 2
#(8 ?#822# 8 #B# #8 #2#, &
0!
@>A%2#
D& D # # !E9 >(% />)42#, # 2 3
;$ !
@>*% !E9 /% 2 8
, ## #
,# 8
2 F!E9 -%2 ))=.(=51 /0!E9 %2 # !E9 "% 2 2 2 ## 2
# 2 !E9 &% !E9 ;%2 < #
&
0 ## , B #
;< 3!
@>(% 2 ,
9#
DB D , ## !E9 >(% / )4 8 , !E9
% 8 , , < 9 , )G())+(+ B #
, />)4 , !E9 $% ## # !E9 3% # 2 , !E9 E% ## # , ? #8 2 # #8 2##2 ,B #
0 , # #
3 # !E9 B%2 3 < +1+()+(( # #
2 # # 2 -
;$ !
@>)%
$ # E9 2 , < $ #E9 !E9 H% # ,# $## # 2 $# "#&''(/$10.
.2'
"/03 * $ $## (G* $ $ #
2 2### )+G$ $
A <
# )) 2 ## 2 # #, ## 1 < # 9 2 B #
0!
@>(%
;< 2
,
1G
1)> I-
;$!
@>)%
28# # $ # E9 I 3
;$ !
@>*% ,2 2#2 ,
I&
0!
@>A%
2 , 2 ,
## #
2 ,
;< !
@>(% ! # % 2 # -
0
;$ 2
, # '4'$&'
5'"-/#$
. ## 2 *(* $ $; #
, ,
#### # ## ; , ## 9 B#2
;$ !3@>(% 2
E93>(E93>A ## # "/03 #%".
'&/-/#$
G " # $
## ## 8 # # #2 # #
# ## #, , 2 / # 9 # 2#
F , # F , ## # F , # # ##, ## > , # , ## > 5
2
## > # #$.'$./#$- 4 " ### #
# #$ ##2
> % " 8 # , 2 !3@>(% # #$2
#, , ;$ 2# 9 # ,
2 ,I %
> # 1+ 1)> !)%! % I %
>
2 ,
2 9# I %
7 # 2
2 # 9 , #
I % 9# #,
#$ #E9 I % $# # ,I
% # 9 F , (+ $ #
# # ## #, , # ;2 # # # #,#" #$# #
2# #
## B , F# ## ,
((
# #
# #, 0 # , : ## ? 2 2 , # , ## 1+ < #,
2 2
2 # , # 0,# # # 8 #
: ##
2 # , @ $ # E9 7 !E9 H%
##2
9
2 #:#? # 2 , ? 2 !3@>(%# , # 8 #, ,# #$" #
#,
# $ # E9 F 60"(/7 /$12 8-)
.0.'
#4 %$90:;
<
)))
"/=/$03 () " #2##,
>05''$ ?%=0"
8-)
.0.'
#4 /=0&203 "0('-2;
)))
"/=/$03 < 2
#, , #2 #2 ## > ? 2 #, #,### ## > B,
$ #B ; 7# $ >%@'-2 /$12 8-) .0.';
0"&#./& "0$&2 #4 '32/
$+/$'
, # # # # 2#
8 , #,## 2 ## # 8 B, #
# /"0 /$12 0$( 0$#.2'"
8-)
$/#$ #4 $(/0 0$( 0$#.2'"
# # 9 6F , 7 #0
# $03A-/- 0$( '0-#$/$1 (* ;
#, # 0 # # (A "2#
F 3
, (451 # , 3 B
<
$
> /(0"
/$12 0"0 8-) .0.'
#4
%$90:;,
)))
"/=/$03 , ##2
> J)+ C 3 , #, ,
, 2 9 # ? # #
3 , 0 # F , , (+ , # K (1 ; D# $ 6##"
10 8-) .0.'
#4 %$90:
0$( 0$#.2'";,
<
))
"/=/$03 #
3 , 9 #
, ## # , 2#
, 80 2 $ 2
# , # # #
,# #
, C 3 # ; ,
# # #
#0 ,
62 #: 70 2#
$ #2, # 2## # # #
? 2# , 3 , (. 0 8 3
, #, , 2 # ##, #2# ##, 2 # 8 2
0
, ## # $ #E9 2
2< #
# 9 +/$@ 5/('$&'
/$&#=73'.'
(G
" # $ B#2
;$ !3@>(% 8 2# # $ #E9 9 # " # $ B#2
;$ !3@>(% !E93>)%
$ #E9 7# ## # $3
#
# #" #$# B #
0!
@>(% #-
;$ !
@>)% 2 2 # , # !E9 H%
# +.+()+(( $ F #, # # $
, !E93>)%
, , 9 $ 3
> F # #, ## 8 # (5 ,
8 ,# #$ #2 ? !E93>)% , B#2
;$
!3@>(% , 2 #,$3
# # #$ B #
0!
@>(% ,
# $3
$ # E9 # ;2 # # $ #8 ,2 ##
, ? ## , , 0 2# , 9# , ## #, , # # $ 0 $ 3
,## # , (4 / B #
0!
@>(% , 2 #8 &
2 ;$
# 9 ;$ ; 9 2 # #2 , >2# ? F , )+ / # !E9 H% 2 , 2 # # 2##0
# 8 # ? #,
$ 2 # ## #, ## 2 ##, $ # E9 #, 2 L " # $ #8#
#
#
# 8 0 #, # # 8 # #$ #=73/0$&'
#4 7"#5/-/#$- #4 '&./#$
& #4 .2'
&. )( ? # , ?
!
@>A% #, 2 1)> !)%! % 2 2
# # E , #22 # 1)> ! % # !E9 3% ,
!
@>A% 1)> , F 2 # 2 #
!E9 E% # !E9 3% , #22 ))
2 , (454 1)> 2 2 >
!
"
"
#
$
%
" &&
"
'(
&
) )
"
&
*
&
+
+
" "
"#
( %
&
$
"
#
, -" .
/ * 01$
01$
2 31(
$ 31,
*
"
&
$
#
)* ; D# $ $/#$ #4 $(/0 8-) #20$303
0$( 0$#.2'",
2# 8
1)> !)% ! % > 4'# .
5 '$&*
$
" &
"
5
'( "
"
"#
6#
&
( 5 '$&* )
"
#
"
2 5 "
"
&
"
"
"
"
# . "
"
7
#
1#
) "
"
#
"
5 '$&*
, *
"
"
&
$
( 5 '$&*
#
*
#8
)A 6/=0"$9/.
/$12 8-) .0.'
#4 %$90:;
$+/$'
, ; 7# $ 2# F
# #20$ +03
-%7"0 # 1)> 2 #2 ##2
(+ ((> 49# : 2%&1 "
"
"
"
#
;
"
#
#
:
# * "
<
)
#8
)1 ; 7# $ 60$1/303 8-) .0.'
#4 0(2A0
"0('-2;
$+/$'
< , 2# F
1)> #2 ,
>
6
0# = >
5 '$* -2?5 * )
"
" #
*
"
"
#
"
# 2
"
# !
-?25 *
# -&
"
" 5 , .
/ * 01$
/ * #
"
"
#
). 0 2 # 2 2 # , 1)> !)%! % " #$# # , ##
## # ##
$'C730/$'( ('30A /$ -'$(/$1 -0=73'
.# 2'=/&03 C0=/$'"
27.
Dealing with the submission of delay of 10 days in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner. ? , ).())+(+
B #
0 !
@>(% # # # #
2 />)4 -
;$ !
@>)% +1+()+(( $ #E9 -
;$!
@>)%
,-
;$!
@>)%2 2 !E93 % 2
/>)4 )5 A representative sample of any contraband after its seizure and deposit in Malkhana or with concerned SHO is required to be sent to Chemical Examiner within 72 hours as per the instructions issued vide standing order No.1 of 1988 dated 15.03.1988 issued by Narcotics Control Bureau. The sanctity of the instructions came up for consideration in Noor Aga (supra) wherein it was observed as under:- "Logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remains intact. Clearly, there has been no substantial compliance of the guidelines by the investigating authority which leads to drawing of an adverse inference against them to the effect that had such evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the prosecution."
29.
The investigating officer is obliged to follow the procedural safeguards as provided in the instructions as long as they do not override the provisions of the NDPS Act and supplement the procedural protection given in the Act. In 'State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh' (1999) 6 SCC 172, 2
.
"#
30.
This Court in 'Malkiat Singh @ Kala Vs. State of Punjab' 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 353, while relying upon the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh'
2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 58, with regard to delay in sending the samples to Chemical Examiner, observed that:- "11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that though the alleged recovery was effected on 03.07.1997, yet the samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 08.07.1997 and, thus, the delay of 5 days, in sending the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner, remained unexplained and, as such the possibility of tampering with the same, until the same reached the Laboratory, could not be ruled out. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished, as to why the samples were not sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, for about 05 days.
Had any explanation been furnished, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof, but in the absence of any explanation, having been furnished, in this regard, the Court cannot coin any of its own. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611 (P&H), there was a delay of 14 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering with the sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence was incomplete. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted, in that case. In 'State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh' 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 58 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 521 (SC)., the contraband remained in the Malkhana for 20 days.
The malkhana register was not produced, to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable.
In these circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted. In Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 452 (P&H), the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 72 hours, the seal remained with the police official, and had not been handed over to any independent witness. Under these
<
circumstances, it was held that this circumstance would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the prosecution could lead other independent evidence, to prove that none tampered with the sample, till it reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The other evidence, produced by the prosecution, in this case, to prove the link evidence, is not only deficient, but also unreliable. In the instant case, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The delay of 05 days, in sending the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, and non-strict proof, by the prosecution, that the same was not tampered with, till it was deposited, in that office, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct, is accepted."
31.
As noticed above, the witnesses have not furnished any explanation for the delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner. If any explanation had been furnished by the witnesses, the matter would have been considered in light thereof. However, in absence of any explanation of delay of ten days in sending the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner and further with no clarity in the statements of the witnesses about deposit of Form-29 in the office of Chemical Examiner, possibility of tampering of the sample cannot be ruled out under these circumstances. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, as noted above, the observations made in Hardip Singh (supra) cannot be taken as parallel to this case as in aforesaid case #, A+ ,
# $ #E9 2# # 2#2 # # 2 $ # E9 0
2# 8 # #,
# $ # E9 #, # #$9#/$/$1 #4 /$('7'$('$.
D/.$'--
*)
>
2 ,
## # >9 2
#
, # 2 ### # , $ 2# :
# # **
#, 2 2 ,# ,
3
;$!
@>*% ,2
, ## , ## , ## ;# 5 2 2 ## ## 3##2# ?
&
0 !
@>A% 2 2 ## ;2 # 2 ## ## 3##2#? ,22 ()*+ (*+0< #3
;$ !
@>*% (*+ ? # , 2 # 8
2 ,,##1*+ ## 3##2# (8 ## CB * 8 0 #, # 2
, ?
2 # # #
*A 0 2 , F # 2 2## # 2 ,
F 2
##, E 2 2 2 ,
0 2 # 2 #
> # 2 # ; 7# $ 6?"/-20$ 20$( 8-) .0.'
#4 /=0&203
"0('-2;
6 ##0< 2 , 0 6 #"0@2 0.2 "0-0( 8-) .0.'
#4 /20";
<
)))
"/=/$03 <, ; 7# $ 2# F
#
#, # 2 2 2 *1 / F #
2# , # ## 2# , # ,
# , ## # , / 2 !
@>*M @>A% ,
2 , 0< 3
;$ !
@>*%0<##,2 I2 2 (+ 0 #, &
0 !
@>A%
9# 8# 3
;$!
@>*% 9,3
;$!
@> *%0<#1. # , , ? # 2
$4#"=0$.
2/=-'34 /- .2'
/$5'-./10.#" *. $ #B ; 7# $ %@'-2
/$12
-%7"0, 2# # # #8 2 ## , # = # = , ?## ## # , :
2 N# #
# ?# #, ## # 7 #$&#=73/0$&'
#4 7"#5/-/#$ #4 '&./#$
#4 &. *G ? , # # ##
> # 1+ # @ 2 ## F 1+
#, , , #,
,## > # ? 1+ # #0
#, , # 1+ , #,$ #B ; 7# $ >8/90A-/$2 20$(%:20 0('90 8-) .0.'
#4
%90"0.;
# #, 1+ F # 2 # 2 #>09'-2 2/=0$ 0$( #.2'"- 8-) .0.'
#4 /=0&203
"0('-2;
> %3-20$ 0$0 8-) .0.'
#4 /=0&203 "0('-2;
) Whether percentage of the salt of contraband or the entire quantity of recovered contraband is determinable for qualifying the quantity under the Act 38.
Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant for considering the percentage of the salt of the contraband and not the entire quantity of recovered contraband for determining the culpability under the Act is concerned, same stand answered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hira Singh (supra) observing that it is the total quantity of the contraband and not the percentage of the salt to be considered while considering the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to bring to the notice of this Court any observation to the contrary. The aforesaid argument thus cannot be countenanced.
*4 0 , #7 , #,
F# 0 # # # C 9 # , 2# ,
A+ 2 # # ## > , 2 # ? # # $ #8
## #
## #, A(
2 A)
###2? )*(+)+(*, - #$ , ## F A* ? ## # +A+*)+(.,$ B 0 2 A*G> $ $(4G* ## 9 2 *+,
, # #$= $ 2 ## 9 A*G> $ $ $, #
2 # $ 2 # #$ , # " # $ #
## , # #### ? , , ,#2 #9,# #
# AA
## # ,
#,
"#$#%$&'( #$
$( #5'=:'",
=# @8
= O= @# O=