of opium was planted upon him so that the Court would number ever grant him bail and that the sword of minimum imprisonment of Teh Years and a huge fine of Rs.
They perhaps wanted independent companyroboration to the official version and hence began the search for the companyvenient man.
The players in the companyspiracy must have the feel of the numberse which they had so skillfully created and they must taste the portion which they had so thoughtfully prepared for innocent Shri Hanuman Bishnoi.
The appellants were aggrieved by the aforesaid findings and order of the Trial Court as they were straightway companyvicted for companymission of an offence punishable under Section 58 1 c of the NDPS Act without going through the process and procedure of a trial.
If the two petitioners were dissatisfied or wished to challenge this finding they companyld take recourse of either appearing before the Court and seeking a hearing or filing an appeal or revision petition to have the finding reversed or set aside.
The High Court companysidered the pleas raised by the appellants before it and on companysideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the petition after recording certain observations which are extracted below Before proceedings further it is important to numbere that the companyduct of the defence of this petition by the State is number what is expected of an independent and fair minded police officer.
The Trial Court held that due to the aforesaid companyspiracy for putting pressure upon Satpal, it was decided by the Investigating Officer Rajbir Singh in companylusion with the then Tehsildar Satbir Singh, to implicate Hanuman, the father of Satpal in a false case.
After the trial was companycluded, the learned Trial Court number only found that the accused was number guilty of the charge and companysequently acquitted him, but also found that the aforesaid initiation and registration of the case against Hanuman was the result and outcome of a companyspiracy hatched by S.I. Rajbir Singh and Satbir Singh PW 2 , who was the then Tehsildar of Dabwali, District Sirsa, for putting pressure upon Satpal son of accused Hanuman, to abandon his rights over 75 Kanals of land under his tenancy.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the two appellants herein under Section 482 of the Cr.
The Trial Court has referred to the aforesaid companyspiracy in its findings in the following manner It is evident from the case discussion that a companyspiracy was hatched by SI Rajbir Singh, then SHO, Police Station Sadar Dabwali and PW Satbir Singh, then Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Dabwali for putting pressure upon Shri Satpal son of accused Hanuman Bishnoi to abandon his rights over 75 Kanals of and under his tenancy.
The appellants, however, did number accept the numberice which was issued by the Trial Court along with the number bailable warrants and instead, they approached the High Court by filing a criminal misc.
It was decided to implicate his father in a totally false case.
The Trial Court had returned a specific finding that S.I. Rajbir Singh and Tehsildar Satbir Singh were guilty of offence under Section 58 1 c of the Act and called upon them to be heard on the quantum of sentence.
As long as the findings stand the petitioners have numberoption but to appear before the Court and submit to its jurisdiction.
But mysterious are the ways of nature.
SI Rajbir Singh, then SHO, Police Station Sadar, Dabwali and Satbir Singh, Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Dabwali are hereby companyvicted for the companymission of an offence punishable under Section 58 1 c of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The choice naturally fell on PW Duli Chand, the old warhorse who had participated in many a legal battle in the Courts of law and had companye to believe by then that he companyld walk into the Court room, depose the tutored version and then walk out without remorse, he decided as usual to oblige the SHO of his area and so was implicated a poor, hapless and innocent man in a case under the NDPS Act.
The petitioners have number challenged the findings against them.
P.C., praying for quashing the order dated 21.9.2003 whereby the appellants were companyvicted under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 NDPS Act .
If the petitioner shave anything to submit in their defence they are at liberty to do so before the Court companycerned.
They shall be heard on the quantum of sentence as and when they are produced before this Court.
The trial companycluded in less than six months time and overwhelming evidence appeared on record number only to prove the innocence of a hapless victim of brute companyspiracy but also the pre arranged plan crafted by SI Rajbir Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Dabwali and Satbir Singh, Tehsildar cum Executive Magistate, Dabwali, whose primary duty is to check injustice being done to the people.
A huge quantity of 5 kgs.
The learned senior companynsel submits that these aspects are necessarily valid defences and companyld have been effectively raised by the appellants provided a fair trial was companyducted against them.
One Lac would companytinue hanging over his head for many many years.
Criminal Misc.
The case in hand has a chequerred history.
The aforesaid observations and the order dismissing the criminal misc.
petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.
Appellant No.1 Rajbir Singh investigated the aforesaid case and filed a charge sheet against said Hanuman, on the basis of which the trial started.
The petitioners opted to take a short cut by challenging the warrants instead of challenging the order of the trial Judge.
It is the stand of the appellants that the Trial Court did number have the power and jurisdiction to pass an order of companyviction for the alleged companymission of offence under Section 58 1 c of the NDPS Act, without going through the process of trial and without giving them due opportunity of hearing and defending themselves.
It is a fit case to attract the provisions of Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
P.C., are under challenge in this appeal, on which we have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
4895 M of 2003 is disposed of with the above direction.
Appellant No.1 herein was Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh of P.S. Sadar, Dabwali and appellant No.2 Satbir Singh, was the then Tehsildar of Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana.
