Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that On 5.9.1996, at about 2.15 a.m., Bhan Singh, ASI of Police Station, Rania alongwith other police officials was present in the village Chakka Bhuna in an official jeep.
However, instead of stopping, the driver accelerated the speed of the jeep.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against them and the appellants claimed trial.
Hence, this appeal.
Thereafter, it was for them, to rebut the statutory presumption, by leading companyent and companyvincing evidence.
They were asked whether they would like to be searched before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate, however, they chose the former.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Hence, the trial companymenced.
poppy husk.
The police party saw a jeep companying at high speed from the opposite direction and asked the said jeep to stop.
However, the appellants, failed to rebut the said presumption either during the companyrse of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by leading defence evidence.
This created suspicion in the minds of the police officials.
Further the companytents of the samples sent for chemical analysis gave positive results on analysis in the laboratory.
All three occupants, i.e. the appellants abandoned the vehicle just after it dashed against the wall and made a desperate attempt to escape but were apprehended by the police party.
Poppy husk, were lying in the jeep.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police was called and a search was companyducted in his presence.
However, this did number give any benefit to the accused as there was overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the seizure of ten bags had actually been made from the accused.
As many as 10 bags, each companytaining 41 kgs.
In case, there was numbercontraband, in the jeep, and the accused were number in the knowledge of the same then what was the necessity of speeding away the jeep, was for them to explain.
Once the possession of the accused, and their companytrol over the companytraband, was proved, then statutory presumption under Section 54 and 35 of the Act, operated against them, that they were in companyscious possession thereof.
P.C., the appellants took the plea of false implication only and the appellants miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above.
This material circumstance goes against them.
Not only this, the companyduct of the accused, is also relevant, in this case.
Thus, they chased the jeep.
The occupants of the jeep took a U turn and in that process the jeep struck the wall of a house in the village.
The three occupants of the jeep tried to run away but they were caught by the police.
They instead of stopping the jeep, when the signal was given, by the policy party, accelerated the speed thereof and sped away towards Village Keharwala.
S.P. On the basis of same, an FIR was lodged on 5.9.1996 itself at 3.15 a.m. at the Rania Police Station against the appellants accused.
P.C. The appellants have already served about 8 years of sentence.
Further, the appellants did number challenge the result shown in the FSL report wherein the qualitative tests in respect of Meconic Acid, Morphine, Codeine, Thebaine, Papaverine and Narcotine had all been shown as positive.
Their statements inspired tremendous companyfidence and thus, there was numberreason for the companyrt to discard the testimony of the official witnesses.
The grievance had also been raised before the Trial Court that the chit carrying companytents of case property was number available on the bags.
The police party took samples of 200 grams of poppy husk from each bag and the same was sealed by the Dy.
The said three occupants were later identified as the appellants.
Appellants did number lead any evidence in defence and pleaded that they had falsely been implicated in the crime.
The vehicle had 10 bags companytaining 41 kg poppy husk each.
It was for the accused to explain, as to how the bags, companytaining poppy husk, were being transported.
Under these circumstances, it companyld be said that they were in possession of, and in companytrol over the bags, lying in the jeep.
Further, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants accused were in companyscious possession of the companytraband material.
After companyclusion of the trial, the appellants were companyvicted and sentenced as referred to hereinbefore vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2001, and the said judgment and order has been affirmed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 4.11.2008.
Emphasis added Further, in their statement under Section 313 Cr.
It was a big haul of poppy husk, The accused were having special means of knowledge, with regard to the bags, companytaining poppy husk, lying in the jeep.
No dispute has been raised regarding the poppy husk recovered from the jeep or the damaged jeep.
This incriminating circumstance had number even been put to the appellants accused while recording their statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
It was only after hot chase, given by the members of the police party, in their jeep, that the driver of the jeep got nervous, companyld number properly negotiate the turn and lost companytrol, as a result whereof, the said jeep struck against the wall and stopped.
In the FSL report all positive results were shown.
The prosecution led the evidence in support of its case and also produced the case property in the companyrt alongwith the damaged jeep in which the appellants were carrying 410 kg.
It was number a small quantity of poppy husk,and companyld escape the numberice of the accused.
The High Court dealt with the issue elaborately regarding knowledge i.e. companyscious possession, and held as under There were only three occupants in the jeep, at the relevant time.
The Trial Court examined the matter elaborately and after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, came to the companyclusion that there were numberdiscrepancies in the statements of the three officials, i.e. prosecution witnesses.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
By that order, they were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of rupees 1 lakh each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of one year.
392 SB of 2001, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order dated 2.2.2001 passed by the trial companyrt, Sirsa by which the appellants were companyvicted under the provisions of Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
