Sr.
No.","Name of the
accused","Offence under
Section",Sentence
1.,Manmohan Singh,"22 of NDPS
Act","Convicted is sentence to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of TEN YEARS
and to pay fine of RS.ONE LAC only. In
default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ONE YEAR.
2.,Kamaljit Singh,"22 of NDPS
Act","Convicted is sentence to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of TEN YEARS
and to pay fine of RS.ONE LAC only. In
default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ONE YEAR.
Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that prosecution carried out a very shoddy investigation. He drew the attention of the Court to the,,,
statement of the Satnam Singh Investigating Officer who has appeared as PW3 in Court in evidence. The relevant parts of the statement of Satnam,,,
Singh are extracted as under:-,,,
“During investigation Manmohan Singh accused told me that Surinder Kumar S/o Ram Asra pays them money for bringing the intoxicants. So,",,,
accused Surinder Kumar was nominating in the present case u/s 29 of NDPS Act and his arrest warrants were obtained from court then I conducted,,,
raid at village sonali District Una from where he was arrested on 4.9.2014. His arrest memo is,,,
Ex.Pw3/L. His personal search memo is EXPw3/M. I identify all the accused present in the court today. I have seen the case property today in court,,,
ie parcel ExMO-1 to ExMO-8. Photographs were also got clicked by me in the court room during inventory.â€,,,
XXXXXXXX,,,
“It is incorrect that accused Surinder Kumar runs a chemist shop voltd that brother of accused Surinder Kumar runs a chemist shop however,,,
accused Surinder Kumar sit at the chemist shop along with his brother. On the day when accused was arrested the raid was conducted at the chemist,,,
shop of brother of accused Surinder Kumar. No recovery was effected from the aforesaid chemist shop. No effort was made to take the accused to,,,
the magistrate or Gazetted officer voltd the accused was given option to get the search conducted in the presence of any magistrate or Gazetted,,,
officer. Joint consent memo of both the accused was recorded and no separate consent memos were prepared. Efforts were made to join the,,,
independent witnesses from public but none was ready. I cannot tell the names of the person who were asked to join the investigation. I did not take,,,
any action against the persons who refused to join the investigation. Village Barodi was nearest place from the spot of recovery. I did not sent any,,,
official to call a public witness from village Barodi. I interrogated the accused about the origin of the contraband but he did not disclose the same. The,,,
contraband/medicines recovered from the accused were bearing the name of the company, manufacturing date, date of expiry, batch number etc. I",,,
did not inquire from the concerned company as to where they have delivered the medicines/drugs in question, throughout my investigation. The ruqa",,,
carrier came back to the spot at 7 pm. The information was given to the wife of accused on mobile. I interrogated the accused about the place from,,,
where he started before reaching the spot. The accused was on foot. No vehicle was with the accused. No intimation was given from the spot to any,,,
senior officer. I did not try to hand over the investigation to any other official after sending the ruqa. The house of the accused was not searched.,,,
Surinder Kumar accused was arrested on 4.9.2014.â€,,,
While drawing attention of the Court to the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that proper investigation has not",,,
been carried out either against Surinder Kumar or his brother who runs a Chemist shop. While elaborating, he submitted that the contraband/",,,
medicines recovered were bearing the name of the company, manufacturing date, date of expiry, batch number etc. However, the prosecution did not",,,
make any effort to inquire from the concerned company as to where these medicines/drugs were supplied. He hence submitted that the case against,,,
the appellant(s) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.,,,
He has further submitted while drawing attention of the Court to the Statement of PW4 Assistant Sub Inspector Narinder Singh wherein he admits,,,
that there is overwriting of date on Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/L and statement of Constable Raj Sukhwant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is",,,
apparent from careful examination of Ex.PW3/D that the date under the signature of SHO was originally 23.08.2014 which was converted by,,,
overwriting into 24.08.2014. Further on careful examination of Ex.PW3/L, it is apparent that the date 05.09.2014 has been converted into 04.09.2014",,,
by overwriting under the signatures of the Assistant Sub Inspector. Further statement of Constable Raj Sukhwant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the date,,,
has been changed from 29.08.2014 to 30.08.2014. These over-writings as noticed above have been admitted by PW4 Narinder Singh. However, no",,,
explanation has been given as to how and why these over-writings over the dates on the respective documents took place.,,,
Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged drugs/medicines were carried by both",,,
the appellants in separate bags. However, the aforesaid bags have not been named in the case property and the prosecution has failed to explain as to",,,
where these bags have gone.,,,
Apart therefrom learned counsel has also pointed out certain minor contradictions which are not required to be discussed.,,,
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that both the accused",,,
were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 25.08.2014 along with the bulk parcel and sample parcel and the learned Judicial Magistrate,,,
after examining the recovered drugs had passed a detailed order certifying the case property and Assistant Sub Inspector was allowed to break open,,,
the seal of the bulk parcel and draw another sample and thereafter representative sample was sealed. Hence he submitted that the argument of,,,
learned counsel for the appellant(s) does not have substance.,,,
This Court with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties has gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and the record.,,,
This Court after evaluating the evidence available on the file is of the considered opinion that in the present case, the prosecution has not fairly",,,
conducted the investigation. It has been stated by Satnam Singh Investigating Officer that during interrogation Manmohan Singh (appellant) had,,,
disclosed that Surinder Kumar son of Ram Asra (accused No.3), who has been acquitted, used to pay them money for bringing the intoxicants.",,,
Surinder Kumar was made accused and his arrest warrants were obtained from the Court. It is alleged that on 04.09.2014 raid was conducted at,,,
village Sonali District Una from where he was arrested. In cross examination Satnam Singh also states that brother of Surinder used to run a Chemist,,,
shop and Surinder Kumar (accused) used to sit on the aforesaid Chemist shop along with his brother. A raid was also conducted as per the,,,
Investigating Officer on the shop of Chemist, which was being run by brother of Surinder Kumar, however, no recovery was effected from the",,,
aforesaid Chemist shop. It must be remembered that recovery in the present case is of huge quantity of proxyvan plus sapsmo company capsules and,,,
plastic bottles of 100 ml rexcof of cipla company. However, Investigating Officer admits that he did not make any effort to inquire from the concerned",,,
company particularly when the contraband/medicines recovered from the accused were bearing name of the company, date of manufacturing, date of",,,
expiry, batch number etc. The Investigating Officer ought to have inquired from the manufacturing company or its wholesaler as to who had",,,
purchased this huge quantity of medicines which contained contraband. However, Investigating Officer failed to collect the evidence.",,,
Still further the overwriting in the file as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant(s) have remained unexplained. No doubt both the appellants,,,
were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 25.08.2014. However, it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why there are",,,
overwritings of the date in the material documents, which is noting of officiating SHO on the information sent for registration of FIR Ex.PW3/D.",,,
Similarly, Ex.PW-3/L, which is arrest memo of Surinder Kumar, again there is an overwriting of the date i.e. 5.9.2014 has been converted into",,,
04.09.2014. Same is the position in the statement of Constable Raj Sukhwant Singh.,,,
Still further, in the present case no independent witness has been associated by the police at the time when the appellants were apprehended and",,,
recovery was made. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were standing near the road from village Barodi to village Block Majri at 2.00,,,
pm. There was nearby fuel station of HP Company. This area falls in District SAS Nagar, Mohali, which is adjoining town of Chandigarh. Area falls",,,
in the jurisdiction of police station Sohana. This entire area is thickly populated being near to Chandigarh. In such circumstances, this Court is required",,,
to scrutinize the evidence more carefully.,,,
Without repetition, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. Investigating",,,
Officer has even gone on to admit that he did not inform any senior officer and he did not search the house of the accused.,,,
Still further, it is the case of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated due to their dispute between Kamaljit Singh, appellant in CRA-S-",,,
4002-SB-2016 and Paramjeet Singh. Suggestions as given to the Investigating Officer are as under:-,,,
“I do not know Paramjit Singh S/o Sham Singh R/o near Railway station Kurali. I also do not know that he has relation at village Badhal Tehsil,,,
Anandpur Sahib. I further do not know there was a dispute between Kamlajit Singh who is brother in law of Darshan Singh S/o Sohan Singh. On,,,
24.8.2014 there was a dispute between Kamaljit Singh and Paramjit Singh at their residence. It is also wrong to suggest that at the instance of,,,
Paramjit Singh we arrested Kamaljit Singh in his house of Paramjit Singh in the morning and later on at his instance involved in this false case. It is,,,
wrong to suggest that no recovery was effected from the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.â€,,,
Taking into consideration the evidence which has been produced on file and submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, this Court is",,,
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.,,,
As per the custody certificate produced, Manmohan Singh (appellant) was involved in another case i.e. FIR No.199 dated 03.09.2008 under Sections",,,
452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and was acquitted on 30.09.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Una. Appellants Manmohan Singh and",,,
Kamaljit Singh is not involved in any other case.,,,
For the reasons recorded above, the appeals are allowed. The judgment passed by the learned trial judge is set aside and the appellants be released",,,
forthwith if not wanted in any other case.,,,
