Saurav Partap Alias Sourav Alias Sunny & ANR v. State Of Punjab

 







































































 


 

 




   







 


!"
#$%$!&

''  

(


 
)


(
)

*


''
++ ,, &% ( -%.%  

 
'''

%+!&/ & 

0
12
0 '


 

  


 




 









 
  !!!!

 

 3
'

"







 
 
#   #$

%&'()'%*

+
 
 

,

# ) "



+



 

-''-)'%%

 +

+
.
 


/
0 
 



1#

2%3


 






+




 
4 
0
5 
#
6

 
#
#
 




 


 

# 1







 



# 

7#
8
4 #
.
 
# 



 
+
 + 





#
 






,

  
&'
#

#


#
#
0

 

7#
8
4 #
#


#
 

 












































































 
#
#


8

8
+ /
9%3



/
9)3

 


/3 4

 
#
+
:.;
9-*

-''-)'%%



))

 
90



,#
#
#

  
 

7#
8
4 #


8

8

+




 






8

8
+




 




"

+

 


#

 

 


8


8
+


%
7
 #

*''
#

#





&''
#
 #

 





&''
#

#
"


#


8

8
+




 





 
 


 
:.;
9-<

')'&)'%%



%<
))
=%><*

 
90



,#
# - .
 
"
#


:.;
9-*

-'')'%%


7#
8
4 #



 #

%%%))'%& +
 
,

 

,
#


8

8

+

?

 #

'&'%)'%=



 

#


 ?+

#

 




 
 



 
"

?

 #

%&'()'%=

 


 

 
?
#

  &

 


+

#
 

 


#


8

8
+




 



:.;
9-<

')'&)'%%

 
"




 







































































 

%@-/)3
,,






 
"



8

8
+




/
3
# 



 #

%&'()'%*

+
 
 
 ,
#
 
?
 


 



 
 

)-'))'%) * "


#
 #




  
 

 = "





 


 
  

 

:.;
9-<

')'&)'%%


%<
)) =%><*

 
90



,#
#


 



 


.
 



+ 

7#
8
4 #

 
.


 
 #
 




 


/3




 
 

#
4

 


#
 

 
>
#




:.;
9-*
 -''-)'%%


))

 
90



,#

#
"

+

 

#


 
+
  


 

 ?
:.;
9-<

')'&)'%% 6
 


+




 
 #
#

:.;
9-*

-''-)'%%
 

:.;
9-<
 ')'&)'%%
 



 


 






 
 
+
#
 



 
 

#


 


 

:.;

9-*

-''-)'%%
.

 

#
#
+
 

 
>

+

+
.
 

 












































































 


 
"

:.;
9-*

-''-)'%%
4
 
+

?

 
"


 

:.;
 

 
 






"



  
"


 


 


?
;
 

 
 #

 



 



   




 



! "##$  %  

&''  
 

 
 

+

#  
 


 


#


:.;
9-*
 -''-)'%%

7#
8
4 #

 

 
4 0

5 
#

#


 
 



 +
 +
 
 


 
 
+
# #

 




#
 
#
9

5 
# 


#
 



 
+
##

2%>0 

 



#
 
 


+
#
 
 

 +

 
 



 
%'
# 
"


 



 
+

#

 #  
+
 






 



#
4+


# @ 6
 
 

 




 
 

  
+
 
 
"


+
  



#
 





 
#+


 

 


A

 #
 
+

 



?

 
" #


:.;
9-*


-''-)'%%


#
 
 +



 







































































 
?

 




.

 
 ?
:.;
9-< 
')'&)'%%

# 

 
+




 
:.;

 

 
 



 

 # < .


 



 
 ( 4

 

 
#




 

 



))'
,,

))-

 
#

  > $& 

  

  (. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in subsection (2) of Section 212 or in subsection (1) of Section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

(3) If the facts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.

(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.

 









































































(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

)* +

 ,-( . / &,. The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely: (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; (c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;

(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;

(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the firstnamed persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such lastnamed offence; (f) persons accused of offences under section 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;

(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges;

Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of

 







































































  the categories specified in this section, the [Magistrate or Court of Session] may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and [if he or it is satisfied] that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together. %' .
 



 



/3

:.;

  
 
90

"




 



 +

 


#
 #
2 

+
 $

 
#

#
 
  

 
 




#
 
 
 



#



"


 
 :.;
#


 
2 
? 
 

:.;
 
,
 
 


   

 
 



  #
"
"



1

 

 #


 >

16. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 on behalf of the State reveals that he registered the crime no.9/2017 under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985 with the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station against the petitioner and one more accused who were found in possession of contraband drugs. It further reveals that during the custodial interrogation qua the petitioner on 23.3.2017 at 16.30 hours, he disclosed that he had concealed narcotic drugs in a locker of his cupboard in his rented house owned by one Shri Victor D'Souza at Gavwadi, Anjuna, Bardez, Goa and that he had concealed the key to the lock of the house and cupboard locker under the stone on the left side of his house. The information was reduced into writing and subsequently the respondent no.2, after obtaining authorisation/permission from the DYSP Anti

 







































































  Narcotic Cell, conducted a raid in the presence of panchas and found the contraband as stated herein above.

17. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Babubhai (supra) what is required to be found out as to whether both the FIRs' relates to the same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, where the version in second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes then the second FIR is permissible and investigation in both FIRs has to be conducted. It is clear from the complaint as well as from the record that during the custodial interrogation in crime no.9/2017 the petitioner is alleged to have disclosed the concealment of narcotic drugs in his rented house which is owned by one Victor D'Souza at Gavwadi, Anjuna, Bardez Goa which necessarily means that the subsequent offence is nothing but the occurence giving rise to more than one cognizable offence committed in the course of same transaction and therefore, the subsequent FIR is liable to be quashed.

18. It is not the case of the prosecution that pursuant to an information from a third source or from some independent person it had conducted subsequent raid. Moreover, contrabands in both cases were found from the possession of the petitioner as per Section 22 of the NDPS Act in the course of same transaction. It is neither the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was selling, purchasing, transporting, importing interState contrabands. As such, in view of the peculiar fact of this case the ratio in case of Babhubai (supra) will have to be made applicable.

19. After examining the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to both the FIRs and after applying the test of sameness, it is clear that both the FIRs relating to the incidents which are two in numbers but arising out of same

 







































































  transaction. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be an altogether distinct and different offence committed at different point of time as what transpired is that the petitioner was already in possession of another set of contraband at his rented house which he alleged to have disclosed during custodial interrogation within a day or two of his arrest.

20. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.2 himself is the first informant in FIR No.9/2017 and is the Investigating Officer in both the FIRs.

*** *** ***

22. Thus, it can be seen that the impugned FIR no.11/2017 registered with the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station Goa relates to an incident which is a part of the same transaction and, therefore, it needs to be quashed and set aside.

23. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law as well as the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai (supra), the impugned FIR no.11/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside which is registered with the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji. However, it is made clear that in view of Section 220(1) of the Code, the learned Special Judge is directed to club both the chargesheets together and the petitioner is directed to face a single composite trial. Needless to say that we have not gone into the merits of the case.

 
  

%% .
! " "##/3

 


+
  

:.;

 
6
 


 



 
#



+


 ?
:.; "


,

 
 

  


 
#
"
"


1

 

 #


 >

 







































































 

2. Sub Inspector Prithvipal Singh of Police Station, Chandni Mahal received a secret information that a person named Bhajan Singh was distributing Heroin through his agents. The information was passed on to the concerned S.H.O. by Prithvipal Singh, Sub Inspector. A raiding party was formed joining Police Officials and two persons from the public. The police vehicles were left at police post Turkman Gate and the raiding party was left to Chowk Ghaday Wailan near DDA Park. At about 1:15 P.M. the said Sub Inspector and Head Constable Ram Diya apprehended the petitioner who was allegedly carrying a green coloured attachi case was going on foot towards bazar Chitli Kabar. From that attachi case 10 packets of polythene bags wrapped in a white towel containing Heroin were recovered.

3. The police arrested the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept 2 Kgs. of Heroin out of total quantity of 12 Kgs. in his house which was given to him by coaccused Pinki Gulzar at 9:30 A.M. on 15.3.1988 and he further mentioned in his statement that he could get that packet recovered from his house. The petitioner opened the lock of his house with the keys which he allegedly took from underneath a flower pot in front of his house and then from a store inside the bedroom of the house he allegedly produced a packet of polythene paper which contained the 2 Kgs. of Heroin. S.H.O. S. K. Ahuja of Police station Rajinder Nagar also reached there alongwith his police staff. A separate case was registered against the petitioner for this alleged recovery at Police Station Rajinder Nagar vide F.I.R. 37/88 and separate challan was filed at Police Station, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.

*** *** ***

13. When the law declared in various judgment is applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, the conclusion

 







































































 becomes irresistible. The second recovery of Heroin from Rajinder Nagar was part of the same transaction. The second recovery was effective on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, I direct that both the charges be clubbed together and consequently the petitioner is directed to face a single composite trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(emphasis supplied) %) .
 


+
:.;
9-*

-''-)'%%
  
 

7#
8
4 #
#




&'

#

#




#
#
 
 
 
>
"


 



 
 #



 


 
 

 :.;
9-<

')'&)'%%
"


 

 
 ?
:.;
 #+
+

 




B
+
 
#

+
 


 
>

 :.;
9-*

-''-)'%%
"





 

 
+ #

7#
8
4 #



 

#
 

 
>
#



 
#

.
 

#
#
+
 


 
>
 1  

 
"
#


:.;
9-*

-''-)'%%
.
 
"
 


?

"



$#
" 
:.;
9-*

-''-)'%%

:.;
9-<

')'&)'%%


  

 
 
: 
 



 + #  
"




 
 ?
+
#

7#
8

 







































































 #



 


5 
#

#
 
 



 

#
 #


#
 


5 
#
"


#
 


  

#  

+
 

#
 

 



 
+

 



 # %- .


 
#

.

  #

 
 #

 



 


  
 #







%&'()'%*

+ 
 

,
#




 

 ?

 
  
#
 
 #
4 

 5   '' 
67 7 -
%+ 8$&9:- %!& /

%:!

67 7 -
- +!- ;, 








%:!