Crl.A. 1541 of 2008 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1541 OF 2008

SURJIT SINGH ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.     This appeal by way of special leave arises out  

Of the following facts:

1.1 On the 28th of April, 2004 Sub-Inspector Jaspal  

Singh P.W.3,  alongwith other  police officers  was on  

patrol duty in the area of village Kot Mohammad Khan on  

the Kutcha path leading from village Lohgarh when they  

noticed the appellant sitting on the roadside of the  

canal minor on three gunny bags.  A scooter was parked  

nearby.  The appellant was apprehended on suspicion and  

after  Sub  Inspector  Jaspal  Singh  had  disclosed  his  

identity he inquired from the appellant as to whether  

he  would  like  to  be  searched  in  the  presence  of  a  

Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.  The appellant stated  

that he would be satisfied if the search was conducted  

by a Gazetted Officer on which P.W. 5, Bhulla singh  

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Moga, was summoned to  

the spot.  The gunny bags were thereafter searched and

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008 2

each of the bags was found to contain 34.750 kgs of  

poppy straw.  A sample was drawn from each of the bags  

and the  samples and bags were sealed.  The seized  

articles and other related material was deposited in  

the Malkhana at 1:00p.m.  the same day.   

1.2 On  the  completion  of  the  investigation,  the  

appellant  was  brought  to  trial  for  an  offence  

punishable  under Section 15C read with Section 25 of  

the  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic  Substances  Act,  

1985.  He pleaded innocence and claimed trial.  The  

trial  court  relying  on  the  evidence  of  P.W.  3  Sub  

Inspector  Jaspal  Singh  ,  PW  4  Sub  Inspector  Kirpal  

Singh who was also a member of the police party, and  

P.W. 5 DSP Bhulla Singh, held that the case against the  

appellant  had  been  proved  beyond  doubt  and  as  the  

seizure made from him amounted to commercial quantity,  

the minimum sentence provided under the Act was imposed  

on him.  The matter was thereafter taken in appeal  

before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  The High  

Court  has,  on  a  reconsideration  of  the  evidence,  

confirmed the order of the trial judge.  Before the  

trial court as also before the High Court several pleas  

had been taken they being:(1) no independent witness  

had been joined at the time of the search and seizure;  

(2) that the samples had been sent to the laboratory  

for analysis about four days after the seizure and that

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008 3

the report of the CFSL was, therefore, suspect as the  

possibility of the tampering with the samples could not  

be ruled out; and (3) that the entire incident was the  

outcome of the malafides on the part of Sub Inspector  

Jaspal Singh against whom the mother of the appellant  

had lodged a complaint before senior officers.  All the  

pleas were discussed by the trial court and the High  

Court with a finding  against the appellant.   

2. Even  today,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant has raised similar pleas.  He has pointed out  

that no independent witness had been joined at the time  

of the incident and that Sub Inspector Jaspal Singh,  

P.W.  3,  bore  animosity  against  the  family  of  the  

appellant  as  the  appellant's  mother  had  lodged  a  

complaint against him, and as the samples had been sent  

late to the laboratory it was clear that their sanctity  

had been compromised with the result that the report of  

the laboratory was also under suspicion.   

3. The learned counsel for the State has, however,  

controverted  the  pleas  and  urged  that  categorical  

finding  had  been  recorded  on  all  aspects  and  

interference at this stage was not called for.   

4. We have considered the arguments advanced very  

carefully.  It is true that no independent witness had  

been involved and no attempt had been  made in that  

direction.  However, keeping in mind that the seizure

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008 4

had been effected at about 5:30a.m. and was the outcome  

of a sudden meeting between the police party and the  

appellant,  it  was  difficult  to  get  an  independent  

witness.   In  any  case,  we  find  that  Sub  Inspector  

Jaspal Singh, PW 3 SI Kirpal Singh, P.W. 7, DSP Bhulla  

Singh and several others had also been present  at the  

time  of  the  incident  and  all  have   supported  the  

seizure that had taken place.  Even assuming that SI  

Jaspal Singh  bore some  animosity the  possibility of  

false implication has been dispelled by the presence of  

the  other  police  officers  particularly  DSP  Bhulla  

Singh.  

5. It is true that the samples appear to have been  

sent after a delay of four days and the messenger who  

took the samples has not been examined as a prosecution  

witness.  The fact remains, however, that the seals  

found on the samples were intact when the samples had  

been  received  in  the  laboratory  and,  more  

significantly, whensa the inventory of the samples was  

taken in the Malkhana long after, the seals were found  

to be intact at that stage as well.  We must take it,  

therefore, that the report of the Laboratory was also  

accurate and reflected the true state of affairs as to  

the seizure.

6. We,  accordingly,  find  no  merit  in  the  appeal  

which stands dismissed.       

Crl.A. 1541 of 2008 5

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 12, 2011.