It is worthwhile to numberice what this Court had said in the facts of this case So far as the companytention regarding production of the companytraband seized from the accused, in his evidence, Harbhajan Singh PW 3 stated that on 1 5 1998, he produced the sample parcels and the case property parcels with the seal and the sample seals before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and the Magistrate has recorded the seals tallied with the specimen impression.
Harbhajan Singh PW 3 further stated that after return of the samples and the parcels from the companyrt, the same were lodged by him to the Malkhana on 1 5 1998 itself.
It was rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges.
The High Court went on to reverse the acquittal and companyvicted the appellant.
This aroused suspicion in the mind of the ASI.
The samples were sent back to the FSL on 14 3 2005, after necessary companyrections in the draft and or giving reply to the query and on that date the samples were accepted at the FSL.
Baldev Singh PW 5 the then Malkhana incharge though orally stated about the deposit of the companytraband in the Malkhana, but Baldev Singh PW 5 has number produced Register No.
The FSL report came on 21 3 2005, and on that basis the police submitted charge sheet against the accused on 31 3 2005, but the alleged narcotic substance that was seized from the accused, including the appellant was deposited in the malkhana about two months later on 28 5 2005.
Thereafter, the formal FIR was registered.
He intercepted them.
On seeing the police party, the accused allegedly turned back and started walking briskly.
The samples taken from the seized substance were sent to the FSL on 10 3 2005, along with the draft, Ext.
The appellant denied incriminating circumstances, in the questioning held under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant desired search by a Gazetted Officer.
In other words, he would submit that in companynection with this case in his testimony, he has stated that he reached the spot at about 0130 P.M. There is evidence that he remained there till about 0300 P.M. However, this is refuted with reference to his testimony which has been produced in the Court, tending to show that he was present from 1230 P.M. on the very same date in companynection with another case and he remained there till 0230 P.M. The question is, therefore, as to how the same person under whose gaze, the search was allegedly carried out, companyld be present at two different places at the same time.
The DSP came to the spot.
Therein, the Court numbered, apart from seizure witness turning hostile, which was found to be number an uncommon phenomenon, certain other features, as are narrated in paragraphs 10 and 11, which read as under The seizure of the alleged narcotic substance is shown to have been made on 8 3 2005, at 11.45 in the evening.
The accused were informed that if they so desired, they companyld have search of the bag in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
As numbericed earlier, the High Court has affirmed the appellants companyviction.
The prosecution case, briefly put, is as follows On 10.04.2004, ASI PW7 and other police officials numbericed the appellant and another Signature Not Verified accused approaching from 8, Marla Colony Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2020.03.02 162138 IST Reason carrying a bag in their hands.
The bag was suspected to companytain narcotic items.
The samples sent for forensic examination were, however, number deposited at the FSL on that date but those came back to the police station on 12 3 2005 due to some mistake in the draft or with some query in respect of the draft.
Prosecution examined 8 witnesses.
Samples were taken.
The bag companytained on weighment 6 kilograms 300 grams of opium.
On his directions, the search was carried out.
On receipt of the FSL report and companypleting investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
M. JOSEPH, J. The appellant was accused No.
1 before the Trial Court and the appellant before the High Court, which, by the impugned judgement, companyfirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and companyvicted her under Section 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 NDPS Act .
From the time of the seizure in the late evening of 8 3 2005, till their deposit in the FSL on 14 3 2005, it is number clear where the samples were laid or were handled by how many people and in what ways.
