CRA-S/110/2004 of CHAMKAUR SINGH Vs STATE OF PB. on 24 July 2026

1. The prese and orde Additiona appellant Drugs and sentenced fine of R rigorous i

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

CRA-S-110

Reserved on Pronounced Uploaded o erative part of the judgment is P gment is pronounced: Yes h

Versus

N’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPIND Rajat Dogra, Advocate, for the a Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab, f *** T CHAHAL, J. ent appeal has been directed aga er of sentence dated 11.12.20 al Sessions Judge cum Special was held guilty and convicted u d Psychotropic substance Act, 1 d to undergo rigorous imprisonm Rs.1 Lac, in default of payme imprisonment for a period of six

JAB AND HARYANA ARH -SB-2004 (O&M) n: 21.05.2026 d on: 24.07.2026 on: 24.07.2026 Pronounced : No

...Appellant

...Respondent DERJIT CHAHAL appellant. for the Respondent State. ainst the judgment of conviction 003 , passed by the Learned l Judge, Amritsar whereby the under Section 15 of the Narcotic 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act) and ment for ten years and to pay a ent of fine, to further undergo months. n d e c d a o

2. The facts with other On their w Khemkara kilometer bed. The the police suspected his right Officer an getting hi who reach he apprise However, reposed c his search bags were same wer grams fro remaining 'GS' and memo Ex Thereafte Ex.PF/1 w grounds 19.05.200

of the case are that on 18.05.2 r police officials was going from way, they joined one Sukhdev R an Bus Stand. When the polic rs, they saw a person (Appellant said person noticed the police a e party got suspicious and he wa d that he was carrying some con of being searched either before nd he consented for his search b s consent, the wireless messages hed at the spot and after disclos ed him of his right of search eit , the Appellant got his consent onfidence in DSP Major Singh h conducted in his presence. On e searched, which were in pos re found containing 20 Kgs. pop om each bag were taken out and g poppy husk were also sealed 'MS', and taken into possessio x.PC. and the seal was hande r ruqa was sent to the police sta was recorded. The rough site p of arrest were disclosed to 02, SI Gurbans Singh produced t

2002 S. I. Gurbans Singh along m Khemkaran to Village Gazal. Raj, an independent witness from ce party had proceeded 5 to 6

t) sitting on poly bags, in a river and tried to run away. However, as apprehended. The police party ntraband and he was apprised of e the Magistrate or a Gazetted before a Gazetted Officer. After s were sent to DSP Major Singh, sing his identity to the accused, ther before him or a magistrate. statement Ex.PB recorded and and stated that he wanted to get n the directions of the DSP, all session of the accused and the ppy husk each. Samples of 500 d sealed and the bags containing separately bearing impressions on by the police vide recovery ed over to ASI Ravel Singh. ation, on the basis of which, FIR plan Ex.PE was prepared. The the accused vide Ex.PD. On the sample and the case property g m r , y f d r , , . d t l e g s y . R e n y alongwith sample an Gurbans S the samp 23.05.200 Examiner Satnam S recovered investigat

3. Vide orde ordered fr appellant

4. In suppor Gurbans S and PW-3 Prosecuto Ex.PX, an

5. After the under Sec which the him. He nothing h implicated h accused before the Area Magis nd the case property was agai Singh. The case property was d les were retained by SI Gurb 02, the sample parcels were s r Jalandhar alongwith the spe Singh. On receipt of the repor d substance to be poppy husk tion, challan was presented again er date 30.07.2002, the Court of raming of charge under Section to which he pleaded not guilty a rt of its case, the prosecution exa Singh, the Investigating Officer, 3 DSP Major Singh Thereafter or tendered in evidence the rep nd closed the prosecution eviden prosecution evidence was closed ction 313 of the Code of Crimi e incriminating circumstances ap denied the prosecution versio ad been recovered from him, an d.

strate who put his initials on the in kept in safe custody by SI deposited in the Malkhana while ans Singh in double lock. On ent to the office of Chemical cimen seal through Constable rt Ex.PX which confirmed the k and the completion of the nst the appellant. learned Special Judge, Amritsar 15 of the NDPS Act against the and claimed trial. amined three witnesses. PW-1 SI , PW-2 Constable Satnam Singh r, the learned Additional Public port of the Chemical Examiner, nce. d, the statement of the appellant inal Procedure was recorded, in ppearing against him were put to on in its entirety, pleaded that nd stated that he had been falsely e I e n l e e e r e I h c , t n o t y

6. In his de Singh, Su father and

7. The learn available Section 15

8. Learned c implicated provisions as neither certified i that the unexplain remained evidence trial Cour Raj, witho against th had in fac registratio the appell the defenc mandatory also not b in the pro efence, the appellant examined ub Post Master, Patti and DW- d closed the evidence. ned trial Court, after appreciatin on record, held the appellant g 5 of NDPS Act. counsel for the appellant subm d in the present case. He c s of Section 52-A of the NDPS A r the inventory nor the representa in the presence of the learned M samples were sent to the ned delay of five days, while t in the custody of the police offi doubtful. It was further argued rt had withheld the only indepen out any plausible explanation, w he prosecution. Learned counsel a ct been illegally detained by the on of the FIR, which was corrob lant's father before the FIR was ce version of false implication. y safeguards envisaged under S been duly complied with and, in secution case, the appellant was

d two witnesses. DW-1 Manjit -2 Gurtej Singh, the appellant's ng and evaluating the evidence guilty and convicted him under mitted that he had been falsely contended that the mandatory Act had not been complied with, ative samples were prepared and Magistrate. He further submitted Chemical Examiner after an the case property and the seals icials, thereby rendering the link that the prosecution before the ndent witness, namely Sukhdev warranting an adverse inference also submitted that the appellant police several days prior to the borated by the telegrams sent by recorded, thereby probabilising It was lastly contended that the ection 50 of the NDPS Act had view of these serious infirmities entitled to acquittal. t s e r y y , d d n s k e v e t e y g e d s

9. Learned S submits testimonie intact, an unsupport

10. I have he length an evidence evidence,

11. Upon co arise for d

(i) Wheth kilogram beyond re

(ii) Whet Sections case?

(iii) Whe the office chain of c

(iv) Whe defence e of false im

State counsel, per contra, suppo that the recovery stands ful es of PW-1 and PW-3, that the c nd that the defence of false ted by any independent corrobor eard learned counsels appearing nd with their able assistance ca available on record, the impugn the depositions of the witnesses onsideration of the rival submis determination: her the prosecution has succeede s of poppy husk from the consc easonable doubt? ther there has been any violation 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act ether the delay of five days in di e of the Chemical Examiner h custody? ether the non-examination of th evidence regarding alleged illega mplication?

orts the impugned judgment and lly proved by the consistent chain of custody of contraband is implication is an afterthought ration. g for both sides at considerable arefully gone through the entire ned judgment, the documentary s as well as the relevant record. ssions, the following questions ed in proving the recovery of 80 cious possession of the appellant n of the mandatory provisions of so as to vitiate the prosecution ispatching the sample parcels to has affected the sanctity of the he independent witness and the al detention probabilise the plea d t s t e e y s t f n o e e a

12. The pros Gurbans the Gazett It is well of officia confidenc no ground any mater of PW-1 offence. T particular prepared c

13. The pros upon four attempted containing exclusive whatsoeve The quant proved, t NDPS Ac satisfactor denial in h to discha presumpti secution principally rests upon Singh, the Investigating Officer ted Officer before whom the sea settled that conviction can safe al witnesses if their evidence ce. Merely because the witnesses d to discard their testimony. The rial on record suggesting previo or PW-3 to falsely implicate t Their depositions are consistent rs and receive due corroboration contemporaneously during inves ecution evidence establishes tha r bags lying in the river bed. O d to flee, thereby arousing suspic g 20 kilograms of poppy hus possession. The appellant ha er regarding his possession of su tity recovered is of the commerc the statutory presumptions und ct come into operation. The bur rily account for such possessio his statement under Section 313 arge the statutory burden cast ion regarding conscious possessi

n the testimonies of PW-1 SI r, and PW-3 DSP Major Singh, arch and seizure were conducted. ely be based upon the testimony e is trustworthy and inspires s happen to be police officials is ere is neither any allegation nor us enmity or motive on the part the appellant in such a serious with each other on all material from the documentary evidence stigation. at the appellant was found sitting On noticing the police party he cion. The recovery of four bags k each was effected from his as not offered any explanation uch huge quantity of contraband. cial quantity. Once possession is der Sections 35 and 54 of the rden shifts upon the accused to on. Except for making a bald Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed upon him. Consequently, the ion remains unrebutted. I , . y s s r t s l e g e s s n . s e o d d e

14. Learned case, the complied submissio that since bags and NDPS Ac the Hon'b 3 Suprem container, the NDPS p counsel for the appellant vehem mandatory provisions of Section with and the appellant was li on has been opposed by the learn e the recovery of the contraband not from personal search, the ct would not be attracted in the ble Supreme Court in Ajmer Sin me Court Cases 746, have held t , etc. carried by accused person S Act is not required. Their Lords "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

mently argued that in the instant n 50 of the NDPS Act were not iable to be acquitted. The said ned State counsel by contending d had taken place from the poly provisions of Section 50 of the instant case. Their Lordships of ngh v. State of Haryana, (2010) that for search of bag, briefcase, , compliance with Section 50 of ships have held as under :- 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 or 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 t t d g y e f ) , f e e s d d f t e f f f n d s p A

issue in our considered opinion of the observations made by this v. State of Himachal Pradesh has observed: "16. A bare reading of Section case of personal search of a search of a vehicle or a con (see Kalema Tumba v. State of 8 SCC 257, State of Punjab v 172 and Gurbax Singh v. State The language of section is impli be in relation to a person as c vehicles, or articles. This positi the Constitution Bench in Balde position, the contention regardin of the Act is also without any sub

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 late accused was taken to the DSP Ahalawat and as directed by h on his shoulder was searched a

n is no more res-integra in view s court in the case of Madan Lal (2003) 7 SCC 465. The Court 50 shows that it only applies in person. It does not extend to ntainer or a bag or premises f Maharashtra and Anr. (1999) v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28). icitly clear that the search has to contrast to search of premises, ion was settled beyond doubt by ev Singh's case. Above being the ng noncompliance of Section 50 bstance." 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 er (sic former). Thereafter, the P, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh im, the bag carried by accused and the charas was found in that w l t n o s ) C

o y e s n r e e h d t p A

15. Further, (Supreme Court has p p p 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." in the matter of "Kallu Khan v e Court)50: 2022 (1) RCR (Crim held as under:- " 15. Simultaneously, the argum regarding non-compliance of Se of any merit because no reco person of the accused has been the provision of Section 50 mandatorily. In the present case public place, the seizure of cont Therefore, compliance of Secti present case. It is settled in the the case of personal search only the Act is required to be comp vehicle as in the present cas Surinder Kumar (supra) an Considering the facts of this

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 v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2022 minal) 367; the Hon'ble Supreme ments advanced by the appellant ection 50 of NDPS Act is bereft overy of contraband from the n made to which compliance of NDPS Act has to follow e, in the search of motor cycle at traband was made, as revealed. ion 50 does not attract in the case of Vijaysinh(supra) that in y, the provisions of Section 50 of lied with but not in the case of se, following the judgments of nd Baljinder Singh (supra). Court, the argument of non- f d f h e d e e e t ft e f w t

e n f f f

-

16. Thus, ke led by the case, the search of the appell

17. Learned not been c The conte on the authoritat v. State of held that n NDPS Ac acquittal evidence the Court lapses aff inference but Subst reproduce compliance of Section 50 NDPS hereby repelled." eping in view the aforesaid prin e prosecution in the instant case, recovery had taken place from a the accused. Thus, the submissio lant is without any substance and counsel has next argued that Sec complied with as samples were n ention cannot be accepted. This consequence of such non- tively settled by the Hon’ble Sup f Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 78, non-compliance or delayed com ct will not automatically vitiate t unless it leads to significant that cast doubt on the prosecutio ts ought to consider entire evid fect credibility and the non-co under Section 114(g) Indian Ev antial compliance is sufficient. T ed below: “50. We summarize our final co (I) Although Section 52A is p destruction of seized contraband beyond the immediate context o

S Act advanced by the counsel is nciples of law and the evidence it is observed that in the instant a bag and not from the personal ons made by learned counsel for d are rejected. ction 52-A of the NDPS Act has not drawn before the Magistrate. Court is conscious that the law -compliance has since been preme Court in Bharat Aambale wherein the Supreme Court had mpliance with Section 52A of the the trial or entitle the accused to discrepancies in the physical on's case. It was further held that dence and assess if procedural ompliance may lead to adverse vidence Act depending on facts The relevant part of the order is onclusion as under: - primarily for the disposal and d in a safe manner yet it extends of drug disposal, as it serves a s e t l r s . w n e d e o l t l e s s d s a p f p p p p N

broader purpose of also introd the treatment of narcotics subst it provides for the preparat photographs of the seized sub therefrom in the presence an magistrate. Mere drawing of sa officer would not constitute mandate under Section 52A sub- (II) Although, there is no mand from the seized substance must as held in Mohanlal (supra), ye process of inventorying, photogr the seized substance shall as fa presence of the accused, though the very spot of seizure. (III) Any inventory, photographs prepared in substantial complia under Section 52A of the NDP Order(s) thereunder would hav primary evidence as per Sect NDPS Act, irrespective of whet actually produced before the cou (IV) The procedure prescribed in terms of Section 52A of the guide the officers and to see tha the officer in-charge of the inv

ducing procedural safeguards in tance after seizure inasmuch as tion of inventories, taking of bstances and drawing samples nd with the certification of a amples in presence of a gazetted sufficient compliance of the -section (2) of the NDPS Act. date that the drawing of samples take place at the time of seizure et we are of the opinion that the raphing and drawing samples of ar as possible, take place in the h the same may not be done at s or samples of seized substance ance of the procedure prescribed PS Act and the Rules/Standing ve to be mandatorily treated as ion 52A subsection (4) of the ther the substance in original is urt or not. by the Standing Order(s)/Rules e NDPS Act is only intended to at a fair procedure is adopted by vestigation, and as such what is n s f s a d e s e e f e t e d g s e s s o y s p N

required is substantial comp therein. (V) Mere non-compliance of th or the Standing Order(s)/Rules the trial unless there are discrep rendering the prosecution's cas been there had such compliance a holistic and cumulative view exist in the evidence adduced by the same more carefully keeping (VI) If the other material on rec oral or documentary inspires co as regards the recovery as-well contraband from the accused pe the courts can without hesitatio guilty notwithstanding any p Section 52A of the NDPS Act. (VII) Non-compliance or dela provision or rules thereunder m adverse inference against the and fast rule can be laid down be drawn, and it would all dep circumstances of each case. (VIII) Where there has been lap either following the procedure l NDPS Act or the prosecution in

liance of the procedure laid he procedure under Section 52A thereunder will not be fatal to pancies in the physical evidence se doubtful, which may not have e been done. Courts should take w of the discrepancies that may y the prosecution and appreciate g in mind the procedural lapses. ord adduced by the prosecution, onfidence and satisfies the court l as conscious possession of the ersons, then even in such cases, on proceed to hold the accused rocedural defect in terms of ayed compliance of the said may lead the court to drawing an prosecution, however no hard as to when such inference may pend on the peculiar facts and pse on the part of the police in laid down in Section 52A of the n proving the same, it will not be d A o e e e y e

t e d f d n d y d n e e

f

18. Advertin 18.05.200 next day t parcels an his initial samples t forwarded appropriate for the court to res of commission of an offence material under Section 54 of th otherwise satisfied as regards t material from the accused pers record. (IX) The initial burden will lie foundational facts to show tha Section 52A, either by leading e upon the evidence of the prosecu would only be preponderance of (X) Once the foundational facts Section 52A of the NDPS Act, t the prosecution to prove by coge was substantial compliance with the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisf compliance does not affect its ca standard of proof required w doubt.” g to the facts of the present c

02. The evidence on record clea the Investigating Officer produc nd the accused before the learne ls upon the sample parcels as thereafter remained in safe cu d to the office of the Chem

ort to the statutory presumption from the possession of illicit e NDPS Act, unless the court is the seizure or recovery of such sons from the other material on on the accused to first lay the at there was non-compliance of evidence of its own or by relying ution, and the standard required f probabilities. laid indicate non-compliance of the onus would thereafter be on ent evidence that either (i) there h the mandate of Section 52A of sfy the court that such non- ase against the accused, and the would be beyond a reasonable case the occurrence pertains to arly establishes that on the very ed the case property, the sample ed Area Magistrate, who affixed well as the case property. The ustody and were subsequently mical Examiner. Section 52-A n t s h n e f g d f n e f - e e o y e d e y A

primarily and for t primary e would sta manner w been pro establishe case, no prosecutio productio of the Ch does not s

19. It has al Examiner doubtful. of sample possibility Supreme (Criminal opium wh recovery, with or an not fatal t sample to Singh v. S

provides a procedure for dispos treating the inventory, photogr evidence during trial. It does no and vitiated merely because a was not prepared, particularly wh duced before the Court and ed the identity and sanctity of th prejudice has been demons on has duly proved the recov n before the Magistrate, the safe hemical Examiner. Therefore, t strike at the root of the prosecutio lso been argued that the samp r after five days and that such de This submission also deserves r e parcels is not by itself fatal un y of tampering with the seals or Court in Hardip Singh v. Sta

l) 97 while dealing with a case r hen samples were sent to chem however, there was no eviden ny prejudice was caused to the a to the case of prosecution. The o the office of Chemical Exam State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (

sal of seized narcotic substances raphs and certified samples as ot prescribe that every recovery an inventory in the prescribed here the seized property itself has the prosecution has otherwise he case property. In the present strated by the appellant. The very, the sealing process, the e custody and the positive report the alleged irregularity, if any, on case. les were sent to the Chemical elay renders the prosecution case rejection. Mere delay in dispatch nless the accused establishes the r the case property. The Hon’ble ate of Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR relating to recovery of 7 kgs. of mical examiners after 40 days of nce that samples were tampered ccused, the delay was held to be e aspect of delay in sending the miner was discussed in Sucha (Criminal) 25 holding that when s s y d s e t e e t , l e h e e R f f d e e a n the sampl hours, the since ther instruction regulate a this case case prop reached t intact con to the off and no pr present ca that the s him on 2 Chemical be tampe material a the seals seal forwa tampering Therefore chain of recovered laboratory

20. Learned allegedly les were not sent to the office o e prosecution and conviction ca re was no specific provision in ns/standing orders in that respe and control their internal working as has been discussed in the e perty had remained in safe cust the office of Chemical Examin ndition. Therefore, the delay of fice of Chemical Examiner, Pu rejudice is going to be caused t ase, PW-2 Constable Satnam S sealed parcels along with specim 3.05.2002 and that he deposite Examiner on the very same day ered with. His testimony has r aspect. The report of the Chemic on the parcels were found intac arded separately. This circumsta g during the period the sample e, the prosecution has successful custody and thus proved an u d contraband with the samp y. counsel has argued that Sukhde joined during investigation,

of Chemical Examiner within 72 annot be vitiated on that ground the Act in that regard and the ect were only the guidelines to g of Narcotic Control Bureau. In arlier part of the judgment, the tody and the sample parcel had ner, Punjab, Chandigarh in an few days in sending the sample unjab, Chandigarh is immaterial to the appellant/accused. In the Singh has categorically deposed men seals were handed over to d the same in the office of the y without allowing the parcels to remained unchallenged on this cal Examiner also confirms that ct and tallied with the specimen ance rules out any possibility of es remained in police custody. lly established every link in the unbroken chain connecting the ple analysed by the forensic ev Raj, the independent witness was not examined by the d e o n e d n e l e d o e o s t n f . e e c s e prosecutio adverse i acceptanc credibility Punjab, 2 of the off other witn of their case Such an indepe of contrab his signat police sta was not a various p witness o unreliable official/po there is no implicate against th examinati over by t Even othe of indepen on alleging that he was won ov inference ought to be drawn. ce. Non-examination of Sukhd y of the prosecution story. In 2016 (2) RCR (Criminal) 707, i ficial witnesses carry the same e ness and their statements cannot official designation. A Divis ha Singh v. State of Punjab 201 endent witness had been joined band; he had appeared as a witn tures were procured on blank p ation in drunken condition, had acceptable as it cannot be believ papers having different written on blank papers. The testimony e and was discarded. In that olice witnesses was considered o allegation of any enmity again the appellants and there was he appellants, the trial Court h ion of independent witness of s the accused does not raise any erwise, the depositions of officia ndent witness.

ver by the appellant and thus an This argument does not merit dev Raj does not affect the n Krishan Kumar v. State of it was observed that testimonies evidentiary value as that of any be discarded simply on account sion Bench of this Court in 15 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25 when during the search and recovery ness for the defence stating that papers when he had visited the d observed that such contention ved that numerous signatures on material could be signed by a of that witness was held to be very judgment, credibility of and it was observed that when nst the police officials to falsely no reason for them to depose had rightly concluded that non- search and recovery being won doubt in the prosecution case. al witnesses are at par with that n t e f s y t n n y t e n n a e f n y e - n . t

21. Furtherm requireme independe the prosec of PW-1 material Conseque demolish

22. Advertin allegedly appellant the allege probabilis examined booked te Chief Min of telegra Bench of (Narcotic of the app held that, the police Adverting during cr been illeg before any more, independent corroboration ent of law. It is no where ent corroboration is a must and cution is to rejected outrightly. I and PW-3 inspires complete c nature has been elicited ently, non-examination of Su the prosecution case. g to the plea raised by the sent by the his father on 1 had already been taken into ille ed recovery, in the considered o se the plea of false implication d DW-1 who substantiated tha elegrams to the Chief Justice of nister of Punjab and DGP, Punja am and Ex.DB i.e. the postal f this Court, in Sukhpal Singh v cs) 303, while dealing with a sim pellant had sent telegrams alleg in the absence of any previous e e officials, the plea of false imp g to the facts of the present case ross-examination that although gally detained on 10.05.2002, h y superior police officer nor app

n is a rule of prudence and not provided in any statute that in absence thereof, the case of In the present case, the evidence confidence. No contradiction of in their cross-examination. ukhdev Raj cannot by itself Appellant upon the telegrams 5.05.2002 suggesting that the egal custody several days before opinion of this Court, does not

n. In this regard the appellant at the father of appellant had Punjab & Haryana High Court, ab and certified Ex.DA i.e. copy receipt. The Hon’ble Division v. State of Punjab, 2022(2) DC milar matter in which the father ging his son’s illegal detention, enmity between the accused and plication could not be accepted. e, DW-2 Gurtej Singh admitted according to him his son had he neither lodged any complaint proached any Magistrate seeking t t f e f . f s e e t t d , y n C r , d . d d t g

productio informed telegrams appellant' truth of t and canno illegal cus witness h The certif 'A' also d prior to th petition fi Singh an Conseque any reason

23. Resultant the statuto automatic discharge touchston implicatio evidence.

24. Upon app that the 18.05.200 containing n of the appellant. Even the by him passed no resolution i s relied upon merely contain un s father. Such communications their contents. They merely esta ot, by themselves, establish tha stody before registration of the has been examined to corrobora fied copy of the order produced a do not establish that the appella he alleged recovery, rather the filed against illegal detention of nd thus, does not advance ently, the defence evidence, ther nable doubt in the otherwise cog tly, the recovery having been pr ory presumptions under Section cally operate against the appe d the burden of rebutting the ne of preponderance of prob on remains a mere assertion praisal of the entire evidence o prosecution has proved beyo 02 the appellant was found in co g in all 80 kilograms of poppy h

e village Panchayat allegedly in support of his version. The nilateral allegations made by the do not constitute proof of the ablish that telegrams were sent at the appellant was in fact in FIR. Moreover, no independent ate the alleged illegal detention. as Ex.DC and the report marked ant was detained by the police order Ex.DC pertains to a writ f one Sukhraj Singh and Pargat the cause of the appellant. refore, falls far short of creating gent prosecution case. roved beyond reasonable doubt, ns 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act ellant. The appellant has not ese presumptions even on the babilities. His plea of false n unsupported by convincing on record, this Court is satisfied ond reasonable doubt that on onscious possession of four bags husk, the integrity of the sample y e e e t n t . d e t t . g , t t e e g d n s e parcels, th The testim complete appellant any reaso evidence favour of

25. The learn rightly re perversity of convict

26. Conseque

27. The judg passed by Amritsar, NDPS Ac

28. The appe undergo t necessary

29. Pending a

24.07.2026 Puneet he chain of custody and the rep monies of PW-1 and PW-3 a confidence. The alleged irre neither constitute violations of m onable doubt regarding the p is insufficient to rebut the statu the prosecution. ned trial Court has correctly ap ecorded the finding of guilt. T y or infirmity warranting interfer tion or the order of sentence. ently, the present appeal, being d gment of conviction and order y the learned Additional Sessi convicting and sentencing the a ct are hereby affirmed. ellant, shall surrender forthwith b the remaining part of his sente y steps to secure his custody in ac application(s), if any, shall also s

(RU

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

port of the Chemical Examiner. are wholly reliable and inspire egularities pointed out by the mandatory provisions nor create prosecution case. The defence utory presumptions available in ppreciated the evidence and has This Court finds no illegality, rence in the impugned judgment devoid of merit, is dismissed. r of sentence dated 11.12.2003 ions Judge-cum-Special Judge, appellant under Section 15 of the before the learned trial Court to ence. The trial Court shall take ccordance with law. stand disposed of. UPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE

: Yes

: Yes . e e e e n s , t

, e o e