CRA-S/2489/2004 of AMAR SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026

1. conviction da by the learne and convicte Substances A rigorous imp default of pa period of two

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

CRA-S-248

Reserved on Pronounced Uploaded o y operative part of the judgment judgment is pronounced: Yes

Versus yana

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUP Ms. Uru Sharma, Advocate, for Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Hary

***** JIT CHAHAL, J. The present appeal has been di ated 08.07.2004 and order of sen ed Special Judge, Panipat whereb ed under Section 20 of the Na Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS A prisonment for ten years and to ayment of fine, to further under o years and six months.

JAB AND HARYANA ARH 89-SB-2004 n: 21.05.2026 d on: 27.07.2026 on: 28.07.2026 is Pronounced : No

...Appellant

...Respondent PINDERJIT CHAHAL the appellant. yana, for the Respondent State. irected against the judgment of ntence dated 09.07.2004 , passed by the appellant was held guilty arcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act’) and sentenced to undergo pay a fine of Rs.1 Lac and in rgo rigorous imprisonment for a f d y c o n a

2. on 07.04.199 outside bus s coming from seeing the p which arous apprehended of carrying Section 50 o presence of a searched bef appellant wa kgs of Chara the recovered sealed with recovery me contraband a sealed the sa Sant Raj (PW Malkhana w same along w

5) for depos 15.04.1998) the FSL repo presented aga

Shorn of unnecessary details, th 98 a police party headed by AS stand Panipat in connection with m bus stand Panipat carrying a bl olice party he turned back and sed suspicion amongst the po the police party inquired about some contraband in the bag. f NDPS Act was given to him w a Magistrate or a Gazetted Offic fore a Gazetted Officer and acc as searched in the presence of P as was recovered from him. Aft d contraband as sample, the resi seal 'RS' and was taken into emo EX.PF. Thereafter the sam and the accused were produced ample and contraband with his s W7) deposited this sample and t ith HC Naresh Kumar (PW-4) with the sample seal on 15.04.19 siting the same in the Office o who deposited it with the FSL ort Ex.PH and the completion o ainst the appellant.

he case of the prosecution is that, SI Sant Raj (PW-7) was present h patrolling. They saw a person lue bag on his left shoulder. On d started walking at a fast pace olice officials. When he was his identity as he was suspected So a notice Exhibit PE under with an option to be searched in cer. Vide Ex.PE/1 he opted to be ordingly the bag carried by the PW9 Rattan Singh, DSP and 1.5 ter separating 100 grams out of due along with the sample were possession by the police vide mple along with the remaining d before the SHO, who counter seal 'SS'. On the same day ASI the remaining contraband in the who thereafter handed over the 998 to HC Raghbir Singh (PW- of Director FSL Madhuban (on on the same day. On receipt of of the investigation, challan was , t n n e s d r n e e f e e g r I e e - n f s

3. for the comm to which he p

4. Singh, DSP ( PW3, H.C. N Singh DSP a and Rattan S as Ex.PH and

5. incriminating to the accus Cr.P.C. The pleaded false spite of numb

6. evidence ava under Section

7. judgment of to appreciate ignored mate has been ar contradiction delay in sen

Vide order dated 08.05.2001, th mission of offence punishable un pleaded not guilty and claimed tr In order to prove its case the (Retired) as PW1, Prithviraj AS Naresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Ra as PW6, Sant Raj ASI (Retired) Singh DSP as PW9 besides tend d closed the prosecution evidenc On the conclusion of the g circumstances appearing in the ed during the course of their e appellant-accused denied the e implication. No defence eviden ber of opportunities. The learned trial Court, after a ailable on record, held the appe n 20 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel appearing for conviction by contending that th e the evidence on record in i erial infirmities which go to the rgued that the conviction has ns in the testimonies of the pros nding the sample to the Foren

he appellant was charge sheeted nder Section 20 of the NDPS Act rial. e prosecution examined Kartar SI as PW2, H.C. Rajbir Singh as aghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandar as PW7, H.C.Dhan Raj as PW8 dering in evidence report of FSL ce. e prosecution evidence, the e prosecution evidence were put examination under Section 313 e prosecution allegations and nce was led by the appellant, in appreciating and evaluating the ellant guilty and convicted him r the appellant has assailed the he learned trial Court has failed its correct perspective and has root of the prosecution case. It been recorded despite serious secution witnesses, unexplained nsic Science Laboratory, non- d t r s r

L e t d n e m e d s t s d

- association o compliance w the Narcotic

8. suffers from recovered co the ruqa prep a tin contain container. H Officer stated hand, PW-8 container wh to learned co the case prop further been sealing of th affixed on th seal had been Superintende PW-9 DSP R his seal bear versions strik doubt upon appellant.

of independent witnesses thoug with the mandatory safeguards Drugs and Psychotropic Substan Learned counsel has argued m material inconsistencies regar ontraband was sealed and preser pared by the Investigating Office ner whereas the remaining con However, while deposing befor d that both the parcels were kep Dhan Raj deposed that the hile the remaining contraband w ounsel, these contradictions relat perty and cannot be brushed asid contended that there are mater he parcels. PW-7 ASI Sant Ra he sample parcel, whereas PW-8 n affixed. Similarly, PW-7 cate ent of Police had not affixed h Rattan Singh deposed that the pa ring impression "RS". It has bee ke at the credibility of the pros the integrity of the sample

gh readily available, and non- embodied under Section 50 of nces Act, 1985. that the prosecution evidence rding the manner in which the rved. It is submitted that, as per er, the sample parcel was kept in ntraband was kept in a plastic re the Court, the Investigating pt in tin containers. On the other sample was kept in a plastic was kept in a tin box. According te to the identity and sanctity of de as minor discrepancies. It has rial contradictions regarding the aj deposed that two seals were 8 Dhan Raj stated that only one gorically stated that the Deputy his seal on the parcels, whereas arcels had also been sealed with en argued that these conflicting secution case and cast a serious allegedly recovered from the - f e e r n c g r c g f s e e e y s h g s e

8.1. witnesses ha weighing the assume sign adherence to the recovered the punishme

8.2. FIR in the pr ASI Sant Ra argued that t the investiga learned coun stands vitiate

8.3. was effected place having Department. effort was m witness with omission to j assumes cons a serious dou According to

Learned counsel has also poi ave contradicted each other with e alleged contraband. Accordin ificance in a prosecution unde o the prescribed procedure is in d substance has a direct bearing ent prescribed. Another submission advanced resent case was registered on the aj, who thereafter continued to i the Investigating Officer himself ation unfair and contrary to the nsel, the investigation conducte ed and the conviction based there Learned counsel has next conte d from the bus stand at Panipat g high foot fall of general publi Despite the availability of se made by the investigating agenc h the search and recovery proc join independent witnesses, wit siderable significance in the fact ubt about the fairness and transp o learned counsel, the entire rec

inted out that the prosecution h regard to the weights used for ng to him, these inconsistencies er the NDPS Act, where strict dispensable and the quantity of on the nature of the offence and by learned counsel is that the e basis of the ruqa sent by PW-7 investigate the case. It has been f being the complainant renders settled principles. According to ed by the complainant himself eon cannot be sustained. ended that the alleged recovery t, which is admittedly a public c and officials of the Transport everal independent persons, no cy to associate any independent ceedings. It is argued that the thout any plausible explanation, ts of the present case and creates parency of the alleged recovery. covery has been falsely planted n r s t f d e n s o f y c t o t e , s . d upon the app station.

8.4. eight days in Learned cou satisfactory regarding the possibility of

8.5. been comple of the NDP appellant wa Gazetted Off possessed a l an officer. A legal right is not apprised entire search conviction an the appellant

9. prosecution charas from permit. Learn in the statem pellant after preparing the nece It has further been argued that t n sending the sample parcel to th unsel submits that the prosecu explanation for such delay. In e safe custody of the sample du f tampering with the sample cann Lastly, learned counsel has veh te non-compliance with the man S Act. Referring to memo Ex s merely informed that he could ficer or a Magistrate. However, legal right to demand that the s ccording to learned counsel, the s mandatory and not a mere for of his statutory right in the ma h and recovery stand vitiated. I nd sentence recorded by the lear t be acquitted of the charges. Per contra, learned State couns witnesses have deposed cons the possession of appellant-ac ned State counsel further argued ments of the prosecution witnesse

essary documents at the police there is an unexplained delay of he Forensic Science Laboratory. ution has failed to furnish any n the absence of any evidence uring the intervening period, the not be ruled out. hemently argued that there has ndatory provisions of Section 50

x. PE, it is submitted that the be searched in the presence of a he was never informed that he earch be conducted before such communication of this valuable rmality. Since the appellant was anner contemplated by law, the It is, therefore, prayed that the rned trial Court be set aside and sel has argued that the material istently regarding recovery of ccused, without any licence or d that the alleged contradictions es are minor in nature and do not e f . y e e s e a e h e s e e d l f r s t

affect the cas that though a and recovery State counse witnesses fro Learned Stat of independ otherwise sta of 8 days in by the prosec FSL and was i.e. the FSL r of the NDPS effected from Thus, learned by the Learne

10. through the r

11. the appellant Singh are con material fact on the basis o kg charas fro conducted in se of the prosecution at all. Learn appellant was apprehended from y of contraband was effected in el further argued that investig om the public but no one came f te counsel further argued that m dent witness, prosecution cas ands proved. Learned State coun sending the sample to the FSL i cution that the sample remained s not tampered with at any stage. report. Lastly, learned State co S Act is not applicable in the pr m the bag which the accused wa d State counsel prayed that the ed Special Judge be upheld. I have heard learned counsel record with their able assistance. So far as discrepancies pointed t in the statements of PW’s Sant ncerned, suffice it to say that sam is that the appellant was appre of suspicion. The search of his b om his conscious possession, wi n the office of DSP Rattan

ned State counsel further argued m a public place but the search the office of the DSP. Learned gating officer tried to join the forward to join the police party. merely on account of non joining e cannot be doubted, which nsel further argued that the delay is not fatal as it has been proved intact till it reached the office of . The same is fortified by Ex.PH ounsel submitted that Section 50 resent case as the recovery was as carrying on his left shoulder. judgment of conviction passed for the parties and have gone d out by the learned counsel for t Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattan me are minor discrepancies. The hended from bus stand, Panipat bag which led to recovery of 1.5 ithout any licence or permit was Singh in his presence. The d h d e . g h y d f H

s . d e r n e t s e discrepancies of seals affi property bef counsel for t the prosecuti of the prosec after more t prosecution material parti

12. regarding no that people a reasons. PW independent settled that e happens to b elucidated fr Rattan Singh regard to rec their stateme false recover considered o and the sam s about the weights used for we xed on the parcels, time of pr fore SHO and other discrepanc the appellant are not material an ion case. Such type of discrepan cution witnesses more so when th than five years from the date witnesses in the present case h iculars. So far as the contention of the l on joining of independent witne are often hesitant in joining pol W-7 ASI Sant Raj has clearly witness but all expressed thei evidence of a witness cannot be an official witness. In the p rom the cross examinations of P h and DSP Samundar Singh, s overy of contraband from the po ents are partisan in nature or that ry upon the appellant. In these opinion, that testimonies of offic me are held to be reliable. In K

eighing the contraband, number roduction of accused and case cies pointed out by the learned nd the same do not go to root of ncies do occur in the statements he witnesses are being examined of recovery. The testimony of has remained consistent on all earned counsel for the appellant ess is concerned, it is observed lice investigation for variety of y stated that he tried to join ir helplessness. It is now well be rejected merely because he present case, nothing could be PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSP so as to raise any dispute with ossession of the appellant or that t they had any motive to plant a circumstances, this Court is of cial witnesses inspire confidence Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi r e d f s d f l t d f n l e e P h t a f e i

Administrati as under: p p f p

12.1. Reports 736 recording the and that test the ground th

12.2. (Criminal) 9 absolute rule depositions s presumption

12.3. Punjab, (201

ion), AIR 2003 SC 1311, the H “The testimony of police perso same manner as testimony of an principle of law that without witnesses their testimony ca presumption that a person act favour of police personnel as o proper judicial approach to dis good grounds. It will all d circumstances of each case application can be laid down.” In State of Punjab Vs. Balbir S the Hon'ble Supreme Court ha e conviction by relying upon th imony of a witness is not to be d hat he happens to be an official w In Ram Sarup Vs. State (Govt 946, it has been held by the Hon'b e that police officers cannot b should be treated with suspec that police records are untrustw A Division Bench of this Court

13) (4) RCR (Criminal) 320, has

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held onnel should be treated in the ny other witness and there is no corroboration by independent annot be relied upon. The ts honestly applies as much in of other persons and it is not a strust and suspect them without depends upon the facts and and no principle of general Singh, 1994(1) Recent Criminal as held that, "there is no bar in he statements of police officers doubted or discarded merely on witness."

t. of NCR Delhi) 2013(3) RCR ble Apex Court that, "there is no be cited as a witness and their

t. Court cannot start with the worthy." t in Ramesh Kumar v. State of s observed that the testimony of d e o t e n a t d l l n s n R o r e f f official witne animus or h discussing th observed tha prosecution a in favour of t

12.4. (Criminal) 7 carry the sam statements c designation.

13. for the appel parcel to the the present c on 07.04.199 Kumar who 15.04.1998, M deposited the these witness In their respe that so long with the sam FSL report E

esses cannot be discarded until hostility against the accused fo he question of non-joining of th at they are averse to join the p as they are afraid of the fact that the prosecution may expose them In Krishan Kumar v. State 707, it was observed that testim me evidentiary value as that o cannot be discarded simply The next limb of the argument llant is that there is delay of ei e FSL, which casts a serious dou case, the recovery of contraband 98 and on the same day it wa o kept the same in police m MHC handed over the sample pa e same in the office of FSL, Ma ses stepped into the witness box ective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.P the parcel remained in their po me nor allowed anybody to tam Ex.PH reveals that when the sam

it is proved that they have any or his false implication. While he independent witnesses, it was police and depose in favour of t joining the police and deposing m to serious consequences. of Punjab, 2016 (2) RCR monies of the official witnesses of any other witness and their on account of their official ts raised by the learned counsel ght days in sending the sample ubt on the prosecution story. In d was effected from the accused as deposited with MHC Naresh malkhana in safe custody. On arcel to HC Raghbir Singh, who adhuban on the same day. Both x as PW4 and PW5 respectively. PD they have categorically stated ossession, neither they tampered mper with the parcel. Perusal of mple parcel was received in the y e s f g R s r l l e n d h n o h . d d f e laboratory, se delay of eigh case of prose Punjab, 200 evidence tha the accused examiner wa sending the s Sucha Singh was held tha Examiner wi on that groun and the instru to regulate a Therefore, th Chemical Ex going to be c

14. appellant that investigate the settled legal p in Mukesh Si has held as un “12. From the and answer th eals were found intact and tallie ht days in sending the sample is ecution. The Hon’ble Supreme C 08 (4) RCR (Criminal) 97, ha at samples were tampered with then even 40 days delay in se as held not fatal to the prosecuti sample to the office of Chemical h v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) R at when the samples were not ithin 72 hours, the prosecution an nd since there was no specific pr uctions/standing orders in that r and control their internal workin he delay of few days in sendin xaminer, Punjab, Chandigarh wa caused to the appellant/accused. As regards to the contention t ASI Sant Raj being the comp e case is concerned, the same ca position. The Constitution Benc ingh v. State (Narcotic Branch nder: e above discussion and for the re e reference as under:

ed with the specimen seal. Thus, s immaterial and not fatal to the Court in Hardip Singh v. State of as held that when there is no or any prejudice was caused to ending the sample to chemical ion case. The aspect of delay in Examiner was also discussed in RCR (Criminal) 25, wherein it sent to the office of Chemical nd conviction cannot be vitiated rovision in the Act in that regard respect were only the guidelines ng of Narcotic Control Bureau. ng the sample to the office of s immaterial and no prejudice is of the learned counsel for the plainant, was not competent to annot be accepted in view of the h of the Hon'ble Supreme Court h of Delhi) 2020(10) SCC 120, easons stated above, we conclude , e f o o l n n t l d d s . f s e o e t , e

I. Singh Haryan Tamil accuse investig entitled cannot genera inform the en entitled II. itself c bias or upon becaus would ground acquitt contra Punjab view th accuse overru

That the observations of this C v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 S na (1996) 11 SCC 709; and Sta Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 S ed by this Court on the ground gator was the same, it has vitia d to acquittal are to be treated to t be said that in the aforesaid dec al proposition of law that in e mant is the investigator there is a ntire prosecution case is to be d to acquittal; In a case where the informant hi cannot be said that the investiga r the like factor. The question of the facts and circumstances of se the informant is the investigato not suffer the vice of unfairness d that informant is the investigat tal. The matter has to be decid ry decision of this Court in the b (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any o hat the informant cannot be the in ed is entitled to acquittal are not g uled.”

Court in the cases of Bhagwan SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of ate by Inspector of Police, NIB, SCC 369 and the acquittal of the d that as the informant and the ated the trial and the accused is be confined to their own facts. It cisions, this Court laid down any each and every case where the a bias caused to the accused and disbelieved and the accused is imself is the investigator, by that tion is vitiated on the ground of f bias or prejudice would depend f each case. Therefore, merely or, by that itself the investigation or bias and therefore on the sole tor, the accused is not entitled to ded on a case to case basis. A e case of Mohan Lal v. State of other decision taking a contrary nvestigator and in such a case the good law and they are specifically n f , e e s t y e d s t f d y n e o A f y e y

15. that the provis the prosecutio Court in Ajme 746, have hel accused perso Their Lordship p

So far as the contention of the l sion of Section 50 of NDPS Act on is concerned, the law is wel er Singh v. State of Haryana, ( ld that for search of bag, brief on, compliance with Section 50 o ps have held as under :- "15. The learned counsel for th provision of Section 50 of the searching the bag, brief case etc noncompliance would be fata under the Act. We find no merit counsel. It requires to be n compliance or non-compliance is relevant only where search o said Section is not applicable n a person is involved. Search a case, container, etc., does no Section 50 of the NDPS Act, expressly speaks of search of pe speaks of taking of the person Officer or Magistrate for the p issue in our considered opinion of the observations made by this

earned counsel for the appellant have not been complied with by ll settled. The Hon'ble Supreme (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases fcase, container, etc. carried by of the NDPS Act is not required. he appellant contended that the Act would also apply, while c., carried by the person and its al to the proceedings initiated in the contention of the learned noticed that the question of of Section 50 of the NDPS. Act of a person is involved and the nor attracted where no search of and recovery from a bag, brief ot come within the ambit of because firstly, Section 50 erson only. Secondly, the Section to be searched by the Gazetted purpose of search. Thirdly, this n is no more res-integra in view s court in the case of Madan Lal t y e s y . e e s d d f t e f f f n d s w l

A

v. State of Himachal Pradesh has observed: "16. A bare reading of applies in case of persona extend to search of a veh premises (see Kalema Tu and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 2 implicitly clear that the s person as contrast to se articles. This position wa Constitution Bench in Ba the position, the contenti Section 50 of the Act is als

16. x x x

17. x x x

18. It appears from the evidence confronted by ASI Maya Ram 24.1.1996 and he was informed be searched before the gazetted and the accused chose the lat accused was taken to the DSP, Ahalawat and as directed by h

(2003) 7 SCC 465. The Court Section 50 shows that it only al search of a person. It does not hicle or a container or a bag or umba v. State of Maharashtra 257, State of Punjab v. Baldev 2 and Gurbax Singh v. State of 28). The language of section is search has to be in relation to a earch of premises, vehicles, or as settled beyond doubt by the aldev Singh's case. Above being ion regarding noncompliance of lso without any substance." e on record that the accused was m and other police officials on d that he has the right to either d officer or before a Magistrate ter (sic former). Thereafter, the P, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh im, the bag carried by accused t y t r a v f s a r e g f s n r e e h d p A

16. Madhya Pr D/d.21.07.20 p on his shoulder was searched a bag. Thus, applying the interpr person" as laid down by this C above, to facts of present case, i Section 50 of the Act is not r conducted by the investigatio collected thereby, is not illegal any merit in the contention o appellant as regards the nonco Act." More recently, in the matter Pradesh, Criminal Appeal N 026; the Hon'ble Supreme Court "12. The next contention of the a non-compliance of Section 50 same to be devoid of merit. Sect upon an accused a valuable rig conducted before a Gazetted Of requires. Such right is sacro cannot be disregarded by the peril. [See: State of Punjab v. 172] The protection under Sectio the recovery is sought to be search of the accused. It has no

nd the charas was found in that retation of the word "search of Court in the decision mentioned it is clear that the compliance of required. Therefore, the search on officer and the evidence

l. Consequently, we do not find of the learned counsel of the ompliance of Section 50 of the of Mehboob Shah v. State of No(s). 3305-3306 of has held as under:- appellant pertains to the alleged of the NDPS Act. We find the tion 50 of the NDPS Act confers ght to have his personal search Officer or a Magistrate, if he so osanct and indefeasible which prosecution except at its own Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC on 50 is confined to cases where effected through the personal application where the search is t f d f h e d e e f d e s h o h n C e l s

17. the appellant was not appl the prosecuti Section 50 N bag. The app Officer and, Though Sect still the same discussed abo with regard t any substanc

18. record, this C appellant bey trustworthy, corroborated Science Labo of an article, such as a bag, c object, which the accused may v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 S

Since the recovery of charas w t was carrying on his shoulder, licable in the present case. Even ion has gone a step further by NDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the fa pellant exercised his option to accordingly, he was searched b ion 50 of the NDPS Act is not ap e has been complied with. Thu ove, the submissions made by le to non compliance of Section 5 e. On a comprehensive appreciat Court finds that the prosecution yond reasonable doubt. The evid consistent and inspires confid by the documentary evidence oratory. No material contradictio

container, suitcase or any other be carrying. [See: State of H.P. SCC 350 and Ranjan Kumar SCC Online SC 1262]." …..emphasis supplied was effected from the bag which so Section 50 of the NDPS Act n otherwise, in the present case, serving a written notice under act that the recovery was from a be searched before a Gazetted before PW9 DSP Rattan Singh. applicable in the present case but us, in view of the settled law as earned counsel for the appellant 0 of the NDPS Act are without tion of the entire evidence on n has proved its case against the dence of the official witnesses is dence. Their testimony is duly and the report of the Forensic on, omission or discrepancy has r

r h t , r a d . t s t t n e s y c s been pointed sufficient to d

19. learned Spec documentary misreading prosecution conscious po provisions of

20. dismissed. T sentence date affirmed.

21. Court forthw Court shall t law.

22. disposed of.

27.07.2026 Puneet d out which goes to the root discredit the otherwise reliable e Thus, this Court concludes tha cial Judge are based upon proper y evidence and do not suffer fr of evidence warranting inter has successfully established th ossession of 1.5 kilograms of f the NDPS Act. Consequently, the appeal, bein The judgment of conviction date ed 09.07.2004 passed by the lear The appellant, if on bail, shall s with to undergo the remaining take appropriate steps to secure Pending miscellaneous applicat

(RU

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

of the prosecution case or is evidence led by the prosecution. at the findings recorded by the r appreciation of oral as well as rom any illegality, perversity or rference by this Court. The hat the appellant was found in Charas in contravention of the ng devoid of merit, is hereby ed 08.07.2004 and the order of rned Special Judge, Panipat, are surrender before the learned trial part of the sentence. The trial his custody in accordance with tion(s), if any, shall also stand PINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE : Yes : Yes s e s r e n e y f e l l h d