STATE OF PUNJAB versus GURNAM KAUR AND ORS.

State of Punjab is in appeal before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 17th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 157-08 of 2004.

p. 1198, margin D

Respondents herein are three ladies, viz., Gurnam Kaur, Ranjit Kaur and Gurjit Kaur. Gurnam Kaur is wife of Pargat Singh. Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, Amolak Singh and Hira Singh are sons of Pargat Singh. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Ranjit Kaur and Gurjit Kaur are wives of Hira Singh and P<11ramjit Singh respectively.

p. 1198, margin E

On or about 16-06-2000 one Shri S.S. Mand, DSP (0), Kapurthala purported to have received a secret information. He, pursuant to the direction of SSP, Kapurthala, was standing at the turning of Ohilwan Road, Ohussi Bundh in connection with a 'nakabandi' arranged on the basis of the said secret information. Inspector Gurmukh Singh, SI Nirmal Singh, ASI Jaswinder Pal Singh, ASI Paramjit Singh, Head Constable Manohar Singh, Head Constable Surinder Kumar, Head Constable Gurmail Singh, Head Constable Swaran Singh, Constable Harjit Singh, Constable Malkiat Singh, Constable Raj Kumar, Constable Swaran Singh, Singh, Constable Lakhwinder Singh, Constable were with him. One U.P. Bhatt, Intelligence Control Bureau (NCB) was also present.

pp. 1198–1199, margin F

At about 7:30 a.m., one Maruti No.HR03A-2642 was found coming town. Allegedly on seeing the police party, stopped the vehicle at a distance of about and made an attempt to turn the car backwards. came out of the car and ran towards the car was, however, apprehended. as Gurlal Singh @ Lalli. He was taken that other three persons who had fled Singh @ Pamma, Amolak Singh and

p. 1199, margin A

He was allegedly asked as to get his car searched by a Gazetted Officer expressed no objection to the searched On search narcotics were recovered Five packets of heroin marked '333' a gunny bag. Each packet weighed one were taken. Some narcotics were also being 55 Kgs. of heroin and 22 Kgs. A First Information Report was allegedly made a statement that if the Pargat Singh are raided, a large quantity of be recovered. Pursuant thereto a raid Baldev Singh, PW3 and other police Thatha. They met DSP Ashutosh, PW8, the said village itself.

p. 1199, margin D

All the respondents were said to in one of the rooms of the said house. in the back of the bed in the room where sitting, opium wrapped in a glazed paper heroin were recovered. Sample thereof was said to have been taken.

pp. 1199–1200, margin G

A First Information Report was lodged at about 5:15 p.m. on 16-06-2000. Indisputably, Parmajit Singh by that time was already arrested and in the custody of the investigating officer. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Respondents herein were prosecuted for commission of offence under the said Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the Act').

p. 1200, margin A

The learned Trial Judge found the respondents guilty of commission of an Offence under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act and convicted them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

p. 1200, margin C

By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court on appeal, however, reversed the said findings. The High Court found that no independent witness was examined. Village Thatha is situated in the district of Amritsar. The raid was conducted by the police officers of another district, viz., Kapurthala. Admittedly, PW8 DSP Ashutosh had not been informed about the raid. He was in the said village accidentally.

p. 1200, margin C

The ladies were personally searched by the male officers in violation of sub-section 4 of Section 50 of the Act. Prosecution deliberately introduced ASI Rajwinder Kaur, Police Station Harike. Although according to DSP Ashutosh PW8, there was no lady police officer posted in the police station.

p. 1200, margin F

The police officers had to travel for more than eight hours over a distance of not less than 80 kms. and thus there was no reason as to why DSP Baldev Singh PW3 could not A have sent an information to the officers of the police station, Thatha or police station, Harike for registering of a case as per information provided to him by Gurlal Singh @ Lalli.

pp. 1200–1201, margin G

Having been taken through the judgment of the High Court as also other materials on record, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the impugned judgment.

p. 1201

There are several infirmities in the prosecution case. c Subject to just exceptions all offences are local. A statement in regard to the possibility of contraband articles likely to be found at the residence of Pargat Singh was disclosed by Gurlal Singh. His statement was not recorded in writing. Admittedly, Pargat Singh has also been arrested and in that view of the matter as D to why they were not taken to their village is beyond any comprehension. The place of occurrence of the first incidence and the incident in question are situated at distance of 80 kms. whereas Gurlal Singh was arrested at about 7:30 p.m. on 16- 06-2000. The second first information report was lodged at 4.00 E p.m. and it was recorded as 5.15 p.m .

p. 1201

Respondent Gurnam Kaur admittedly is an old lady. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her daughters-in-law. Curiously all of them were found sitting on the same bed beneath whereto the contraband had allegedly been kept. That by itself does not establish that all of them were in conscious possession of the narcotics. They were not even asked any question in regard thereto. Prior to lodging of the first information report, the respondents did not point out the place where the narcotics were found kept. How the raiding party found the same has not been disclosed. The ladies in natural course were in their house. No explanation has been furnished, nor the statement of the respondent was recorded. The investigating officer DSP Baldev Singh PW3 was to prove as to where contraband had been kept not the respondents. H

p. 1201

If by a reason of statements made by facts have been discovered, the same would ag~inst the person who had made the statement section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Prosecution examined any independent witness. Why witnesses could not be found has not been

p. 1202, margin A

ASI Rajinder Kaur who is said to has not been examined. Who conducted the of the ladies? It is not the case of the prosecution searched the ladies. Sub-section 4 of Section postulates that personal search of the ladies by a lady police officer. Curiously PW8 categorically stated that there was no lady officer posted at the police station, Harike. participation by ASI Rajinder Kaur was introduced anybody's comprehension. Personal search conducted by DSP Baldev Singh which hereinbefore was violative of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.

p. 1202, margin B

It is a matter of great surprise that PW8 although was not informed by DSP Baldev present in the village. His presence in the doubtful. No explanation has been furnished information report was lodged after 11 hours mandatory provisions of subsection 2 of Section had not been complied with.

p. 1202, margin E

The jurisdiction of this court to interfere of Cilcquittal is limited. When two views are possible, of acquittal should not be interfered with. State of Karnataka (2008 (16) SCALE 1]}.

p. 1202, margin A

For the reasons aforementioned we that no case has been made out for interference impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. N.J . Appeal

p. 1202, margin G