State of Punjab vs Jaspal Singh

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—This appeal arises out of the following facts :-

At about 12.30 A.M. on April 23, 1987, a police-party headed by DSP Bhushan Kumar Garg and comprising of amongst others, PW-1 HC Balbir Singh and PW-2 ASI Kamaljit Singh, was holding a Nakabandi on the canal bridge within the area of village Ghawaddi when the three accused Jaspal Singh, Jarnail Singh and Jagbir Singh came in a tempo bearing No. PAV-7229, which was being driven by Jaspal Singh. The tempo was stopped on the canal bridge and Jaspa! Singh was apprehended, but the two other persons, who were lateron identified as the other two accused ran away from the spot. On a search of the tempo, ten bags of poppy-husk each containing 37 Kgs. were recovered. 250 gms. of poppy-husk was separated from each bag as a sample and the sample was duly sealed with the seal of the DSP bearing inscription ''BKG'' and the rest of the poppy-husk was taken into possession. Jaspal Singh disclosed to the police that the two persons, who had run away, were Jarnail Singh and Jagbir Singh and these two persons were subsequently arrested. On the completion of the investigation, all the three accused were charged for an offence punishable u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.

The prosecution in support of its case, examined PW-1 HC Balbir Singh and PW-2 ASI Kamaljit Singh with regard to the circumstances under which the accused had been apprehended and the poppy-husk recovered and also tendered into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh. PF) and the link evidence in the shape of affidavits (Exhs.PG and PH).

The prosecution case was then put to Jaspal Singh accused alone and he denied the circumstances appearing against him but the statements of the other two accused were not recorded as no incriminating evidence against them had come on record.

The trial Court observed that the prosecution had not been able to produce any evidence to involve Jarnail Singh and Jagbir Singh, and the charge against them could not be said to be proved. It was also observed that Jaspal Singh was the owner and driver of the tempo in question and it appeared from the circumstances that he had been un-aware of the contents of the gunny bags and was thus not an accomplice of the two persons, who had run away from the scene. It was also observed that ASI Kamaljit Singh (PW-2), the Investigating Officer had not been empowered to investigate an offence u/s 15 of the Act and through Bhushan Kumar Garg DSP, who was so authorised, had been present but he had taken absolutely no part in the investigation of the case. It was also observed that the seizure had been made within the area of village Ghawaddi and as there was a village abadi on both sides of the canal with many persons available, no attempt had been made to join any independent person as a witness. The trial Court accordingly acquitted Jaspal Singh accused as well.

The present appeal had been filed against the judgment of acquittal.

We have heard Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab in support of the appeal.

We find absolutely no evidence inculpating Jamail Singh and Jagbir Singh accused. We also find tht the evidence against Jaspal Singh, the third accused, is absolutely sketchy. The trial Court has given various reasons to disbelieve the prosecution story. We endorse the findings that the seizure had been made in suspicious circumstances and it appeared that Jaspal Singh had not been aware of the contents of the bags which were being carried in the tempo. We also find that ASI Kamaljit Singh had not been authorised to investigate offences under the Narcotic Act. The finding of acquittal had been recorded by the trial Court on a minute appreciation of the evidence. No reasons have been spelt out calling for interference in an appeal against acquittal.

We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.