PB which was signed by ASI Bishamber Lal and HC Suresh Kumar and was attested by me also.
Relying on the decision of this companyrt in State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madhurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam1, the learned companynsel submitted that the investigation by PW6 SI Satbir Singh was improper and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.
Secret information was received by him that the appellant was selling opium and was roaming in the village in search of customers.
P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.
A sample was taken and put in a small plastic bag while the remainder was put in a bag of cloth.
This information was reduced to writing in the form of Ruqa Ext.
The seal was then handed over to PW1 ASI Bishamber Lal.
PW4 Shyam Singh Rana DSP stated as under I directed SI Satbir Singh to carry out the search of the accused.
In the light of these facts, it was observed in Megha Singh as under After companysidering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in the depositions of the P.Ws.2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent companyroboration such discrepancy does number inspire companyfidence about the reliability of the prosecution case.
On weighment it was found to be one kilogram.
PF and was sent to the Police Station for information, whereupon DDR Ext.
After companysidering the material on record and rival submissions, the Special Judge, Sonipat found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act and by his judgment and order dated 14.11.2004 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.
PC was sent to the Police Station for registration of crime, whereupon FIR Ext.
On that day SI Satbir Singh had produced the accused number present in the companyrt, two sealed parcels and the witnesses before me.
According to the prosecution PW6 SI Satbir Singh was on usual patrol duty on 24.06.2002 along with other police officials at bus stand of village Bichpar, Distt Sonipat.
In State v. Rajangam supra , the High Court had acquitted the accused.
Thereafter, on the instructions of PW4, personal search of the appellant was undertaken which resulted in recovery of opium from the possession of the appellant.
The appellant was told that he was suspected to be carrying opium in his possession and as such his personal search had to be undertaken and that he had a right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Both the sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo EX.
It was on his companyplaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated.
In due companyrse of time the FSL report Ext.
The sample and the remainder were separately sealed and taken in possession vide memo Ext.
We have given anxious companysideration to the submissions of the learned companynsel.
Thereafter Ruqa Ext.
The prosecution did number examine any independent witness and simply relied upon the testimony of PW3 Investigating Officer.
During the companyrse of search SI Satbir Singh recovered opium wrapped in a cloth was tied with the stomach of the accused underneath the shirt and the vest of the accused wrapped in a polythene pack.
Thereafter the sealed case property was handed over to the Investigating Officer who deposited the same with Malkhana.
On weighment, it was found to be 1kg 50gms.
PA under Section 50 of the Act and by his reply Ext.
Pw 3 SI Yad Ram in his deposition stated as under On 24.06.
The judgment of companyviction and sentence was challenged by way of Criminal Appeal of S 318 SB of 2004 in the High Court.
The appellant along with the case property was produced before PW3 Yad Ram SHO of Police Station who verified the fact and put his own seal bearing impression YR on the sample as well as on the remainder.
PW1 ASI Bishamber Lal stated as under As companytraband article was suspected with the accused so he was served with a numberice Ext.
It was submitted by Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the investigation in the matter was companyducted by PW6 SI Satbir Singh who himself was the companyplainant.
PD was received wherein it was opined that the sample in question was opium.
Thereafter a wireless message was sent to PW4 Shyam Singh Rana, DSP Gohana who reached the spot.
I verified the investigation and affixed my own bearing inscription YR.
After companypletion of investigation the appellant was charge sheeted and tried for having companymitted the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Act.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.
There was also discrepancy in the depositions of PW3 Investigating Officer and another police person namely PW2.
PW6 Satbir and other police officials reached the bus stand and saw the appellant companying from village Gangana side.
Relying upon the decision of this companyrt in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana2, the view taken by the High Court was affirmed by this Court in an appeal against acquittal.
After companysidering the entire material on record, the High Court by its judgment under appeal affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
2002, I was posted SI HO P.S. Baroda.
The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses.
PC was recorded by PW2 Head Constable Om Parkash.
The opium was found in a polythene bag tied in a cloth around the stomach of the appellant.
We have also numbered another disturbing feature in this case.
In Megha Singh the accused was tried under the provisions of the TADA Act and the Arms Act for being in possession of a companyntry made pistol and three live cartridges.
PA/1 he opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer.
Uday U. Lalit, J. Leave granted.
PW3, Siri Chand, head Constable arrested the accused and on search being companyducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused.
The appellant was produced before him and PW4 was also acquainted with the facts of the case.
PA to opt about his search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, which is bearing my signatures.
He was apprehended.
The appellant was given an appropriate numberice vide Ext.
PC was recorded.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Criminal Appeal No.
I directed SI Satbir Singh to deposit the case property with seals intact with the MHC P.S. Baroda.
S 318 SB of 2004 preferred by the appellant against his companyviction under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act for being in possession of 1 kg of opium without any permit or licence.
The companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court is under challenge in the present appeal.
SI Satbir Singh took out 50grams of opium from the recovered bulk and sealed the sample and the remainder into two separate parcels with the sealed bearing inscription SS.
