Jit Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Garg, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 4.10.1986, by virtue of which the appellant Jit Singh was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100,000/. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

The police party comprised of SI Ram Rattan (P.W.2), H.C. Bhupinder Singh (P.W.1) and constables Harbans Singh and Gurdial Singh, was present near the railway crossing at Khanna, at about 12.30 P.M. on 19.11.1985, when they noticed that the appellant Jit Singh was running back from the scene. The police party overpowered him and got recovered 2 kgs. 500 grams of opium wrapped in a wax paper from a bag Ex.P2 in his hands. 10 grams of the contents of the material was taken as sample and the remaining was sealed into a parcel by the Investigating Officer with his own seal. Recovery memo Ex.PA was prepared. Ruqa Ex.P.C. was sent to the police station and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PC/1 was recorded. The material captured as such was found to be opium vide report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PE.

So this led to the aforesaid trial of the appellant which led to his conviction. While appreciating the guilt of an accused, it is really the confidence of the Court which to be built up the basis of a natural story of the prosecution based on a credible testimony of the persons who allegedly either saw the offence being committed or the recovery being effected in their presence. The conviction and sentence cannot be ordered merely because the Investigating Officer has been able to see a heavy quantity of recovery of contraband article as the one in the case in hand. It is very convenient that a contraband article may be foisted on a person and unless it is proved to the hilt a person cannot be made liable for the allegations made that he possessed it. In the case in hand, the version of the appellant right from the very beginning being that on 19.11.1985 when the recovery of opium was shown to have been effected from him, he was under the influence of liquor and came in contact with one Sub Inspector and when he misbehaved with him he slapped him. This is not unusual. Such incidents do take plea and there is no dearth of cases when such a person is implicated in a false case because he tried to be over smart with the police and did not give proper respect to the police personnel and authority. These circumstances cannot be overlooked. The probability of the prosecution version in the case in hand goes down the drain when it is absolutely unbelievable that a person like the appellant if holding 2 kgs 500 grams of opium would be going towards a place where the police party is standing in uniform. It is quite unnatural and unbelievable that such a contraband is alleged to have got some sort of origin of the opium. The purpose of the presence of the accused and the police should not only be explained but must be proved to the extent that the conscience of the court is satisfied. In the case in hand, even the appellant was not asked to have the option to get himself searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer nor the police official apprehending the appellant was himself a Gazetted Officer. No effort whatsoever was made even to ask a public person to join the investigation. It is all a camera proceedings against an illiterate person. Merely because the quantity of the contraband i.e. 2 kgs and 500 grams alone cannot inspire confidence in the evidence of the prosecution. There are material lapses in evidence and it is very difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant and to my mind the conviction may lead to miscarriage of justice as such a poor man would have no resource to purchase such a heavy quantity of opium and may have no purpose to do any such act. Hence the conviction is not well based.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge against the appellant are set aside.