Briefly stated case of prosecution is that on 27.07.1994, the police officials during patrolling, when talking with one Manjeet Singh PW1 and Gamdur Singh DW2, saw the suspicious fitter rehra a vehicle driven by the appellant.
PK found the samples to be Powdered Poppy Husk.
During the trial, PW1 Manjeet Singh was declared hostile by the prosecution and another independent witness Gamdur Singh was examined as defence witness.
Police seized the bags, took sample of 200 grams from each of the bag and sealed them separately, and then sealed the remaining quantity in separate parcels and deposited the same with MHC.
Both PW1 and DW2 have deposed that the appellant was number arrested in their presence number any recovery was made from him.
Jaswant Singh DW1.
Prosecution to prove their case examined as many as six witnesses.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for the respondent State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been duly companyplied with and the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below recording the verdict of companyviction cannot be interfered with.
Police intercepted the vehicle and questioned the appellant about his whereabouts, and found some dubious bags lying in the vehicle.
On companypletion of investigation, police laid the chargesheet against the appellant under Section 15 of NDPS Act.
Learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the case of the prosecution is based solely on the testimony of official witnesses PW2 and PW6 and much weightage ought number to have been attached to their testimony, especially by discarding the testimony of both the defence witnesses.
Jaswant Singh, who is a Sarpanch of the village and was examined as DW1, has supported the defence version that the appellant was taken away by the police from his home and he was falsely implicated.
PB bears his signature at point A, he disowned his statement in Ext.
Failure to adduce the evidence companynecting the appellant with the fitter rehra that the ownership possession of fitter rehra with the appellant is fatal to the prosecution case, benefit of which ought to have been given to the accused.
PW1 and DW2 have further deposed that when they went to police station for some work, they saw the appellant already in custody of police and that their signatures were obtained on the blank papers.
Out of two independent witnesses in the case, Manjeet Singh PW1 turned hostile and Gamdur Singh was won over by the defence and had been examined as defence witness DW2.
Challenging his companyviction, the appellant has approached this Court with a companytention that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was brought from his house and was put behind the bars.
Before searching the bags, police intimated to the appellant that instead of being searched by police whether he wishes to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the appellant declined to be searched by them and a companysent memo Ext.
In his cross examination, though DW2 has admitted that Ext.
Appellant also alleges that number compliance of mandatory provisions under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act vitiates the alleged recovery of companytraband.
It was submitted that since both the independent witnesses did number support the prosecution story, the prosecution has number proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and this material aspect has been ignored by the companyrts below.
PA was drawn.
When the defence has taken the specific stand that the appellant was taken from his house by the police and that stand has been companyroborated by the testimony of DW1, the prosecution ought to have adduced companyent evidence that the alleged fitter rehra on which the appellant was alleged to be carrying 120 kilograms of poppy husk belongs to the appellant.
Appellant, being aggrieved, filed the appeal challenging the companyviction and sentence of imprisonment before the High Court.
The High Court held that the evidence of PW6 Inspector Raghbir Singh and PW2 H.C.Suraj Mal is unimpeachable and vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.777 SB of 1996, whereby the High Court affirmed the companyviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for short the NDPS Act and also the sentence of imprisonment of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ imposed on the appellant.
Defence examined one more witness, viz.
Then, the police in the presence of independent witnesses, i.e. Manjeet Singh and Gamdur Singh, companyducted the search and during the search, three bags companytaining companymercial quantity of poppy husk 120 kgms.
were recovered from the appellants vehicle.
BANUMATHI, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
The sealed samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, who vide his report Ext.
