0

Accused acquitted under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act by Punjab high court

TITLE: Gurjinder Singh v State of Punjab

Decided On-:01.6.2023

CRA-S-2808-2019 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Sandeep Moudgil

INTRODUCTION-   The trial judge in question, a learned trial judge who presided over the case under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, then proceeded to record a finding of guilt against the defendant. The accused convict has made the decision to file the current criminal appeal before this Court because he is dissatisfied with the above-drawn verdict of conviction as well as the subsequent sentences of imprisonment and fine that the learned convicting Court concerned imposed upon him.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

According to the case’s facts, Along with other law enforcement officers, ASI Nirmal Singh, who was assigned to PS Balachaur in the District of SBS Nagar, was out on patrol to check for dishonest characters travelling from Majaari to the direction of Mehndpur. When the police party arrived close to the Village Mehndpur cremation ground, they saw four people exiting a tube well in Jarnail Singh’s fields. They became terrified at the sight of the police party and tried to flee. They were also being pursued by the police, who caught one of them after he had collapsed in some fields. The person who was caught threw a polythene bag into the fields from his pocket. The bag in question was torn when it was picked up by the investigating officer. The aforementioned bag included four Dispovan-branded syringes, three injections, and intoxicating powder.

He identified himself and his address as Gurjinder Singh @ Ginda when questioned. He then weighed the potent polythene bag that Gurjinder Singh had thrown into the fields and that he had picked up; the weight of the bag was 372 gms. Three injections and four syringes were also placed in another parcel along with the aforementioned intoxicating powder. He sealed both packages with his seal, which had the impression “NS.” The suspect was taken into custody and thoroughly searched. The formal FIR was registered based on the rule that the investigating officer had prepared.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

As a result, he went on to file a charge against the defendant for a violation of Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The accused was presented with the previously stated charge; he pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.  The prosecution used five witnesses to support its case, and the learned public prosecutor in question then concluded the prosecution’s evidence. However, the prosecution has been able to present convincing evidence that the seizure was recovered, carried out at the crime scene, and then sealed with the appropriate seal impressions. However, reading the FSL report (supra) also reveals that the sealed cloth parcels were received there, keeping the seal impressions on them intact.It would seem that the material was placed in loose cloth parcels after being examined by the concerned chemical examiner, and that these loose cloth parcels were then sent to the person in charge of the malkhana in an unsealed condition.

“The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit in the appeal, and, is constrained to allow it. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment convicting, and, sentencing the appellant, and, as become recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, is quashed, and, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgement

0

Consent- memo required to search a suspect: Punjab High court

TITLE: Nand Kishore v State of Punjab

Decided On-: May 22, 2023

CRA-S-4625-SB-2015(O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Haresh Manjua

INTRODUCTION –  The conviction and sentence passed by the court of learned Judge Special Court, Pathankot on July 20, 2015, and July 21, 2015, respectively, have been contested in the current appeal. The appellant was found guilty under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Defense pleads on Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

Nand Kishore was apprehended as he approached on foot carrying a bag, lant by the police party led by SI Kuldeep Kumar in the area of Turi Wala Chowk, Police Station Division No. 2, Pathankot. SHO Kuldeep Kumar informed the suspect that he suspected the presence of intoxicating material on him and that a search would be conducted. The suspect could choose to have his search conducted by him, a Magistrate, or a gazetted officer. He had a plastic bag in his right hand and tried to turn around after spotting the police party but was apprehended. The accused executed consent memo Ex.PW2/A to have his search conducted by SHO Kuldeep Kumar. After the consent memo, SI Kuldeep Kumar (PW-2) conducted his search, and 1 Kg Charas was found on him. Consequently, Police Station Division No. 2 in Pathankot filed FIR No. 141 on September 28, 2013, against him in accordance with Section 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985. According to the judgment and order dated 20.07.2015/21.07.2015, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as stated in para. 1 of this judgment is based on the evidence that was presented.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney claims that the officer in this case failed to comply with Section 50 of the Act. When requesting to conduct the search of the appellant, he included himself (SI-Kuldeep Kumar PW2) as the search’s in charge. To bolster his argument, he cites a decision made by this court in a previous ruling.

While contending that the circumstances of the current case substantially complied with section 50 of the NDPS Act, learned State counsel disagrees with the arguments made on behalf of the appellant.  It is clear from reading the judgment rendered by the court below that the Trial Court neglected to review the “memo of consent.”

Therefore, the appeal is granted. The conviction judgment from July 20, 2015, as well as the sentence order from July 21, 2015, against the appellant, are hereby vacated. Any pending applications will also be dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and

has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

0

Defense lies his case on non-filing of CFLS form on time, Punjab high court found no merit.

TITLE: Kewal v State of Punjab

Decided On-:  June 8, 2023

CRA-S-1238-SB-2004 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.S Shekhawat

INTRODUCTION – The instant case deals, an accusation under the NDPS Act has to be precise. Since the defense finds that to be a ground to disregard an accused caught in possession of illicit substance.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current appellant and his co-accused were involved in the transportation and smuggling of poppy husk on February 26, 2000, and all the accused were present near the bridge of the water reservoir (also known as Sua in Punjab), within the area of village Ghurka, on that day, in case a raid was conducted. Inderjit Singh, PW6, the investigating officer, was present near the High School of village Ghurka at the time. The accused’s possession of a scooter was also disclosed. The investigating officer prepared a rukka and delivered it by hand to the police station via H.C. Harjinder Singh. On the basis of this, a formal FIR was filed in accordance with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Along with them, an independent witness named Vijay Kumar sent Sajjan Singh Cheema, DSP, a message asking him to come to the scene. The remaining co-accused, seeing the police party, fled, but Vijay Kumar was able to identify them.

All the procedures duly performed by government officials were by the book.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The prosecution cross-examined 6 witnesses to help make its case.  Facts presented before this Hon’ble court which led to file a FIR was filed, and the appellant and other people were discovered there. With 50 bags of poppy husk, the appellant was captured there. He also carried out the initial investigation. Following the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. At his defense, the appellant told this hon’ble  court an entirely different tale. According to the defense attorney, the prosecution failed to file a form that was supposed to be completed on the spot in order to prevent tampering with the evidence. The defense has vehemently argued about the charged section against the  accused The argument of the prosecution laid down that minor discrepancy cannot be ground to disregard the factual situation with definite testimonies produced before this Hon’ble court.

 The court declared Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the facts of the current case because the recovery of the contraband had occurred from a “Public Place” as defined by Section 43 of the NDPS Act. According to Section 43 of the NDPS Act, a “Public Place” is any public conveyance, hotel, store, or other location that is intended for or accessible to the general public. The accused were seated in a “Public Place” when 50 bags of poppy husk were recovered, so there was no need to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act’s mandatory provisions, and the learned appellant’s counsel’s argument was without foundation. Reliance can be placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme. This Court has carefully perused the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the same are liable to be upheld.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

0

No prior criminal conviction of the accused, bail granted by Punjab High Court

TITLE: Beant Singh v State of Punjab

Decided On-:  19.06.2023

CRM-M-28618-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr.  Pankaj Jain

INTRODUCTION – It is a question of whether a co-accused under section 22(C) of the NDPS act may be granted regular bail in this specific case, which may involve the absence of any prior criminal convictions 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Penal Code for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the case bearing FIR No. 106, dated 14.4.2021, registered under Section 22(C). NDPS Act, registered at Patran Police Station, District Patiala.

The facts of the case are that a white Alto car with a licence plate that read PB-28E-0322 was stopped while the police party was on patrol. On suspicion, the driver revealed his name as Andeep Singh, son of Satpal Singh, the person in the conductor seat as Beant Singh, and the person in the back seat as Karamjit Singh, son of Hardeep Singh. A search of the vehicle revealed a black bag containing 70 intoxicant bottles of Wunicrex, Chlorpheniramine Maleate, and Codeine Phosphate Syrup of 100 ML each, as well as 100 strips of tablets containing 10 Carisoma Carisoprodol tablets. Following that, the FIR was registered. The police party wasn’t joined by any independent public witnesses when the contraband was allegedly found.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney claims that the mandatory provisions of search and seizure have been broken. At the time of the alleged recovery of the contraband, the police party did not include any independent public witnesses. On the other hand, the knowledgeable State counsel argues that the petitioner had a commercial quantity of contraband found on them. The petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail as a result of the conditions set forth in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner had been in custody as of June 9,2022, for a total of one year and seven months. Only one witness has been cross-examined, so the trial is still in its preliminary stages. The petitioner has no prior convictions for any crimes.We are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner after taking into account the length of the petitioner’s sentence and all of the accompanying circumstances.

 The Hon’ble court has noted, the petitioner is a first-time offender, it must be said. He is alleged to have been in custody since April 14, 2021, and none of the nine witnesses for the prosecution have been questioned as of yet. Therefore, it is unlikely that the trial for the current case will be over soon.  In this instance, the strictures of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be somewhat relaxed due to the advantageous provisions of The right to a prompt trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and the petitioner may be granted a concession of bail. In light of this, the petitioner is ordered to post bail with the condition that he provide bail bonds that satisfy the Trial Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

1 2