CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 1 State vs.

Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT, SANGRUR.
(Unique Identification Code PB 0051).

NDPS No.42 dated 24.08.2018.

Decided on …........09.07.2019.

State Versus 1. Makhan Singh son of Late Mohinder

Singh, resident of Lehal-Kalan
2. Rinku son of Mithu, resident of
Beharsahib, P.S.Patran.

…….Accused.
FIR No.21 of 30.01.2018
Under Section 22/61/85 of the ND&PS Act, 1985
Police Station Dirba.

Present: Shri Kanwardeep Singh Saini Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State
Accused Makhan Singh on bail with counsel Sh.A.S.Grewal
Advocate.
Accused Rinku in custody with counsel Shri D.K.Arora
Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. Accused Makhan Singh and Rinku (hereinafter to be referred

to as accused) are undergoing trial in this case under Section 22/61/85 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred

to as the Act) for having been found in illegal possession of 1800

intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam having batch no.TPT-740 Mfd. Dated 11-

2017 exp. Dated 10.2019 and 1140 intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam having

batch no. PCCAA-284 Mfd. Dated 10.2017 Ex. dated 09,2020 respectively

and without any licence or permit on 30.01.2018 at about 4:15 P.M. in the

area of Dirba.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 2 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

2. Prosecution story is to the effect that on 30.01.2018, ASI

Jaspal Chand CIA Bahadur Singh Wala (hereinafter to be referred to as

Investigating Officer/I.O.), along with ASI Avtar Singh (hereinafter to be

referred to as recovery witness), ASI Bahadur Singh Singh, C. Gurpreet

Singh, C. Manpreet Singh Singh were going from Dirba towards village

Rogla Kauhriyan side on a private vehicle having registration no. PB-

13AV-2734 along with laptop and printer in the course of patrol duty and

checking of suspected persons. When the police party reached 200 yards

ahead of H.P.Petrol Pump in the revenue limits of village Dirba, at about

4:15 P.M., two persons were seen coming on foot from the side of drain

while carrying 1/1 plastic lifafa (bag) in their right hand. On seeing the

police party, he became perplexed and tried to turn back. SI Jaspal Chand

apprehended the accused with the help of other police officials. Upon

inquiry, first person accused disclosed himself to be Makhan Singh son of

Mohinder Singh, resident of village Lahal Kaan, P.S.Moonak and other

person disclosed himself to be as Rinku son of Mithu resident of village

Beharsahib, P.S.Patran, District Patiala. ASI also disclosed his name,

identity and designation to both the accused and informed him that he

suspected them to be carrying some contraband Narcotic substance in the

plastic bag carried by both of them and thus wanted to search them along

with plastic bags carried by both of them. He also apprised him regarding

their statutory right to be searched by some Gazetted Officer or a

Magistrate, who can even be called at the spot. Since both the accused did

not repose confidence in the SI, and their non consent memos Ex.P1 and
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 3 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

Ex.P2 were prepared, which were signed by both the accused and

witnessed by ASI Avtar Singh along with C. Gurpreet Singh.

3. Thereafter, I.O. informed Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma DSP,

Sub Divison Dirba on his mobile phone and requested him to visit at the

spot. At about 5:00 P.M. DSP Yogesh Kumar Sharma came at the spot in

the Government vehicle and he informed the DSP about the present case

and thereafter,DSP Sh Yogesh Kumar Sharma told both the accused about

his identity regarding his name, rank and posting and told them that he had

suspicion that some contraband in the plastic lifafas carried by them and he

wanted to conduct their search and search of their plastic bags. DSP also

apprised both the accused about their legal right to get conduct their search

along with the plastic liffafas in the presence of another Gazetted Officer or

Magistrate and they can be called at the spot. Upon which both the accused

reposed confidence in DSP and got recorded their consent statement Ex.P3

and Ex.P4, which was witnessed by SI Jaspal Chand along with C Gurpeet

Singh and ASI Avtar Singh and signed by both the accused respectively.

4. On the instructions of the DSP, SI Jaspal Chand conducted the

search of plastic liffafa carried by accused Makhan Singh from which

another black coloured lifafa was found and on opening the liffafa 180

strips of intoxicant tablets make ALPRAZOLAM having 10/10 tablets in

each strip having Batch No TPT_740 Mfg. date 11.2017 Exp. date 10.2019

( total 1800 tablets ) were recovered. The recovered tablets were converted

into a separate parcel and they were sealed with the seal of the I.O. Jaspal

Chand bearing impression “JC”. Thereafter, SI Jaspal Chand conducted

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 4 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

the search of plastic lifafa carried by the accused Rinku, from which

another black coloured lifafa was found and on opening the liffafa 114

stripts of intoxicant tablets make ALPRAZOLAM having 10/10 tablets in

each strip Batch No PCCAA284 having Mfg. date 10.2017 Exp. date

09.2020 ( total 1140 tablets ) were recovered. The recovered tablets were

converted into a separate parcel and were sealed with the seal of JC by the

I.O. Jaspal Chand. Seal after used was handed over to ASI Avtar Singh.

Sample seals were prepared by I.O. on form no 29 Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. Both

the bulk parcels were also sealed by DSP Sh Yogesh Kumar Sharma with

his seal bearing impression YK along with the sample seals. The case

property was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P8 and same was

witnessed by the above said witnesses. From the personal search of accused

Makhan Singh currency notes of Rs.150/ were recovered, which were

taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P8/A. From the personal

search of accused Rinku, currency notes of Rs 200/- were recovered,

which were taken into police possession vide memoEx.P8/B. Thereafter,

I.O. sent ruqa Ex.P9 through C Manpreet singh on the basis of FIR Ex.P10

was registered by SI Baljit Singh. I.O prepared rough site plan Ex.P11 with

correct marginal notes. Both the accused were arrested vide arrest-cum

intimation memo Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. Special report Ex.P14 was prepared

at the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded.

5. On return to the police station, I.O produced the accused,

witnesses and the case property before Inspector Pushpinder Singh

SHO, P.S. Dirba, who after verified the facts from the witnesses and
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 5 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

accused and perused the case property and after his satisfaction, he

affixed his seal on the case property and sample seals with his seal

bearing impressions PS and then he directed the I.O. to deposit the case

property with MHC Karnail Singh, Malkhana Munshi of PS, Dirba

and accused were sent to police lock up.

6. On the next day, i.e. 31.01.2018, I.O. withdrew the case

property from MHC and produced the same along with the accused before

Sh.Mukesh Kumar Singla, the learned JMIC, Sunam vide application

Ex.P16. Order Ex.P19 having been passed by the learned Magistrate, two

strips were taken out from each bulk parcels after breaking its seal. The

case property was re-sealed with the seal of the Court bearing impression

MKS. Due to non availability of zimny order, the case property could not

be deposited in Judicial Malkhana Sangrur on that day. On return to the

police station, I.O. deposited the case property with MHC. On 01.02.2018,

the case property were produced before the learned CJM, Sangrur, vide

application Ex.P20. Vide order Ex.P21, the learned CJM, Sangrur sought

the report of Malkhana Nair, who made his report Ex.P22 that there is no

space in Judicial Malkhana Sangrur. On the basis of report learned CJM,

Sangrur passed the order Ex.P23, vide which two representative sample

parcels having batch nos. TPT-740 and PCCAA284 sealed with seal

bearing impressions MKS were ordered to be deposited in Judicial

Malkhana Sangrur and remaining case property i.e. both bulk parcels were

ordered to be deposited in police police in safe custody. On return to the

police station, I.O. Jaspal Chand deposited the case property with
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 6 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

Malkhana Munshi MHC Karnail Singh.

7. On 05.02.2018, MHC Karnail Singh produced before

Inspector Pushpinder Singh two sample parcels sealed with seal bearing

MKS, upon which he put both the parcels in another parcel and the parcel

was sealed with by Inspector Pushpinder Singh with his sealed bearing

impression PS. He affixed the secret code on the said parcel as 005/2018

for sending the same to FSL. Thereafter the said parcel was handed over

to C. Bittu Singh for depositing the same in the office of chemical examiner

laboratory, Phase-4, Mohali. This parcel was got deposited in the office of

chemical examiner on 06.02.2018. Upon receipt of chemical examiner

report Ex.P24 and upon completion of investigation, challan against the

accused was presented in the Court.

8. Copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C along with

relevant documents was supplied to the accused free of costs.

9. Finding a prima-facie case, charge under Section 22 of the Act

was framed against both the accused to they pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

10. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW-1 MHC

Karnail Singh, who has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A.

9. PW-1 SI Jaspal Chand (Investigating Officer )has reiterated

the prosecution story as detailed above and has proved on record the

various documents as stated above and he also proved the case property

i.e. representative parcels as Ex.MO1 & Ex.MO2 and bulk pacels Ex.MO3

and Ex.MO4.He identified both the accused present in the Court.

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 7 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

11. PW-3 ASI Avtar (recovery witness) has deposed about the

arrest of the accused and the recovery effected from the accused. He

further deposed about the investigation conducted by I.O. SI Satnam Singh

and DSP Yogesh Kumar Sharma in his presence and he has proved the

documents as detailed above. He identified both the accused present in the

Court. He fully corroborated the version of PW-2 Jaspal Singh.

12. PW-4 Inspector Pushpinder Singh, SHO has deposed with

regard to the case property, accused and witnesses produced before him by

SI Jaspal Chand on 30.01.2018. He further stated with regard to having

affixed his seal bearing impression ‘PS’ on the parcels of case property. He

further deposed that on 05.02.2018 MHC Karnail Singh produced before

him two parcels sealed with seal bearing impression MKS, upon which he

put both the parcels in another parcel and the parcel was sealed by him with

his seal bearing impression PS. He affixed secret code on the said parcel as

005/2018 for sending the same to FSL. He identified both the accused

present in the Court.

13. PW-5 C.Bittu Singh has tendered into evidence his affidavit

Ex.PW5/A.

14. PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Sharma DSP has deposed on on

30.01.2018, he was posted as DSP Sub Division Dirba. On receipt of

telephonic call from SI Jaspal Chand, he reached at the spot. He further

deposed about the investigation conducted by him at the spot. He fully

corroborated the version of PW-2 Jaspal Chand and PW-3 ASI Avtar Singh.

15. Thereafter learned Addl. PP closed the prosecution evidence.

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 8 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

16. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. All the incriminating evidence of

the prosecution was put to the accused. They denied the same and pleaded

false implication. Accused Rinku took a plea that he was picked up from

his shop in his village on 29.01.2018 in the presence of other villagers.

Nothing incriminating article was recovered from him. He was in illegal

police custody of P.S.Dirba for one day and thereafter he was falsely

implicated in this case. His father has moved application before the SSP

regarding his false implication in this case. Accused Makhan Singh took a

plea that he was never involved any criminal case earlier. He is

agriculturist and is a married person having two children. His daughter

namely Rajvir Kaur is student of B.A Final year. The name of his son is

Satgur Singh and is student. One lady namely Sewa Kaur wife of Jaila

Singh is his neigbourer and wall of the house of Sewa Kaur is adjoining

with his house. The above said lady was having relation with ASI

Randhir Singh who is the witness of present case and ASI Randhir Singh

generally visited the house of above said lady Sewa Kaur. Their family

along with him opposed the relation of Sewa Kaur and ASI Randhir

Singh was stopped so many times and ASI Randhir Singh having grudge

against him due to this reasons. He was arrested by ASI Randhir Singh

on 29.01.2018 when he was called in police station and he was handed

over to CIA Bahadur Singh Wala on 29.01.2018 and ASI Jaspal Chand

involved him in this case at the instance of ASI Randhir Singh. He has no

concern with co-accused Rinku present in the court. He has been falsely

involved in this case at the instance of Sewa Kaur by ASI Randhir Singh
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 9 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018
and ASI Jaspal Chand. The tablets shown in this case were already lying

in CIA B.S Wala. He never touched and consumed any intoxicant.

17. In his defence the accused examined DW-1 Jagdev Singh,

who has deposed that he is numbardar of village Lehal Kalan from the

last 20 years.He has proved his identity card as Mark A. He further

deposed that accused Makhan Singh belongs to his village and he never

involved any criminal case and is a married person having two minor

children. The elder daughter of Rajdeep Kaur is about 22 years and is a

student of B.A third year. The house of accused Makhan Singh is

adjoining with the house of one lady namely Sewa Kaur wife of Jaila

Singh of village Lehal Kalan. ASI Randhir Singh who generally visits

the house of this lady Sewa Kaur and having illicit relations with this

lady Sewa Kaur. Due to this reason the atmosphere of this area is

effected by the act of Sewa Kaur and ASI Randhir Singh. The children

of accused Makhan Singh are young and when accused Makhan Singh

stopped ASI Randhir Singh from this act and due to this grudge

accused Makhan Singh was arrested by the police on 28.01.2018 and

no incriminating article was recovered from Makhan singh at that

time. Accused Makhan Singh was brought in the police station Dirba

and false case was planted against the accused and false witnesses were

procured by ASI Jaspal Chand at the instance of ASI Randhir Singh in

this case. Accused Makhan Singh belongs to a respectable family and

he is having no relation with co-accused Rinku or the co-accused

Rinku never seen in the company of Rinku by the villagers or by him

and both are belonged to a different village. Makhan Singh never

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 10 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

touched and consume any intoxicant.

18. DW-2 Satgur Singh has fully corroborated the version of

DW-1.

19. DW-3 HC Harmesh Singh has brought the summoned record

i.e. register no. 19 of P.S Dirba entry no. 237 dated 30.01.2018 pertaining

to the present case. There is a cutting and over writing at Point A, B, C, D

and E in the register no. 19. He has proved the entry Ex.DW3/1. He has

proved DDR No.49 dated 30.01.2018, entry no.53 dated 30.01.2018

Ex.DW3/3 and entry no.54 dated 30.01.2018 as Ex.DW3/4.

20. DW-4 Rameshwar and DW-5 Harbans Lal have deposed that

on 29.01.2018 at about 2:30 pm, four police officials came to their village

in a car of white coloured and forcibly entered in the shop of Rinku son of

Mithu Singh and started search of the shop. In the meanwhile neighbourers

and village panchayat gathered there. During search nothing incriminating

article was recovered. Thereafter, the police officials took Rinku along

with them but when the village panchayat asked the police officials then the

police official disclosed that they want to inquire some facts of a case after

inquiry they will release within one or two hours and they took Rinky along

with them. On the next day, they came to know that police has falsely

implicated the accused in the present case. Accused Rinku was

apprehended from his shop after that father of the accused Rinku moved an

application to the higher authority with regard to the false implication and

his statement was also recorded by the DSP Dirba in this regard.

21. DW-6 Miss. Rajvir Kaur has deposed that accused Makhan
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 11 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

Singh present in the court is his father and they are two siblings. His

brother namely Satgur Singh is studying in Eleventh class at village Bhutal

Kalan. She is studying at Guru Teg Bahadur Lehar Khurad in Class B.A

final year. His father was having motorcycle from the year of 2017 bearing

registration no. PB13AZ6534. His father is an agriculturist and never

involved in any criminal case and they belong to a respectable family. His

father never touched or consumed any intoxicant. One lady namely Sewa

Kaur is their neighbourer and the police and defeated sarpanch Darshan

Singh generally visit the house of Sewa Kaur. His father and their family

generally opposed the visit of these persons and due to this grudge his

father was arrested by ASI Randhir Singh from their village and was

brought in P.S Moonak and then he was handed over to P.S Dirba. When

his father was arrested by the police from their village no incriminating

article was recovered from his father. ASI Randhir Singh procured false

witness of this case against his father and planted false case of tablets

against his father by ASI Jaspal Chand. Her father is innocent and she

proved the copy of R.C of motorcycle asa Ex.DW3/A, certified copy of the

education of his brother as Ex.DW3/B, Aadhar Card as Ex.DW3/C, my

certificate of 10th class is Ex.DW3/D, my certificate of +2 is Ex.DW3/E, his

Aadhar Card as Ex.DW3/F and Driving license of his father as Ex.DW3/G.

22. DW-7 HC Makhan Singh has brought the summoned record

moved by Mithu Ram son of Kapoor Chand, resident of village Bahar

Jachh Tehsil Patran District Patiala for the enquiry of present case. The said

application Ex.DW7/A was registered in their office bearing No.830/P

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 12 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

dated 01.02.2018. He has proved the copy of the application as

Ex.DW7/A.

23. DW-8 ASI Parveen Kumar has brought the summoned reocrd

i.e. log book of vehicle no.PB-13AR/9359 vide entry dated 30.01.2018. He

proved the same as Ex.DW8/A.

24.. I have heard the learned Addl.PP for the State and learned

defence counsel and perused the file in detail.

25. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued case of the

prosecution has been proved on file by the witnesses. Learned Addl. PP

further argued that witnesses were cross-examined at length but there is

no major discrepancy which can show that case of the prosecution is false.

Learned Addl. PP has further argued that minor discrepancy would bound

to occur when the witness was examined after length of time. Learned

Addl. PP has further argued that recovery is effected from both the

accused. Learned Addl. PP has further argued that there is no evidence led

by the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the present case

and has prayed for conviction of the accused. The learned Addl.PP has

relied upon the case law titled as Kasif vs. State NCT of Delhi, Crl. A

506/2018 and Crl.M (Bail) 711/2018, D/d 10.07.2018 , wherein it has

been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the DNA report was held

to be reliable and it was held that the scientific evidence” has proved

beyond doubt that the blood of the deceased was found in the Wagon R of

Kasif”. The discrepancy in mentioning of the car no.DL4CL-0332 instead

of DL 6CC-0332 in the FSL report was held to be “ minor clerical

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 13 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

mistake.... which is required to be ignored.

26. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that

there are major discrepancies in the cross-examination of prosecution

witnesses, which shows that the case of prosecution is false. Learned

defence counsel has further argued that no independent witness was joined

by the prosecution at the time of alleged recovery. Learned defence

counsel has further argued that all the prosecution witnesses have shattered

the prosecution case. Learned defence counsel has further argued that

PW-2 Jaspal Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that 178 strips

related to accused Makhan Singh were not sent to FSL for analysis, only

one strip having 10 tabets were sent to FSL for analysis. As per cross-

examination of PW-2, the accused has disclosed the name of the supplier

namely Gaurav, but the police never tried to arrest the said Gaurav.

Learned defence counsel has further argued that PW-2 has also deposed in

his cross-examination that when the non consent statement and consent

statement of accused were recorded and accused were holding bag in

their hand. When the lifafa was holding in their hand, he cannot sign

consent memo and non consent memo. Learned defence counsel has

further argued that it is not proved that the police party went to the spot or

not as number of the private vehicle was not mentioned and prayed for

acquittal of the accused. The learned defence counsel has relied upon the

case law titled as Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana 2019(1)

RCR (Criminal) 174, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court

that Appeal against conviction and sentence. Non joining of independent

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 14 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

witness while available. No resident of village was asked to join as witness

at time of search of car. Fact also creates doubt in prosecution version as to

why independent witness not joined in investigation of this case.

Although 15 villagers had gathered at the spot. Appeal allowed. Acquitted.

27. In State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, Crl. Appeal

No.556-DBA of 1999, D/o 06.01.2010, it has been held by the Hon'ble

High Court that recovery of Diazepam tablets. Appeal against acquittal.

1850 loose diazepam tablets were recovered in plastic dabba from accused.

Sample of 25 tablets was sent to laboratory. Report stated that 5 mg

diazepam found in each tablet. From 1850 tablets, total recovery of

Diazepam would be of 92.50 gm which is non commercial quantity.

Moreover prosecution failed to convince how the remaining tablets

presumed to be of Dizepam to the extent of 5 mg per tablet when loose

tablets were recovered and were not in form of strips. Held, no interference

warranted with order of acquittal.

28. In Kuldip Ram vs. State of Punjab, Criminal

Appeal no. 1007-SB of 1997, D/d 12.05.1998, it has been held by the

Hon'ble High Court that non compliance of -Recovery of poppy husk.

When police conducts a raid on the basis of an information and recovers

contraband and prior written information regarding raid is not sent to the

superior officer as required U/S 42. Accused is entitled to acquittal.

Investigation proceedings. S.I. when received secret information, he does

not send any information to the police station for registration of the case.

He prefers to associate an independent person and then he raids at the

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 15 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

Haveli, where A.S.P comes on receipt of wireless message. No copy of

wireless message has been placed at the receiving end. Cannot be said that

Section 42(1) has been complied with. Vitiating the recovery of poppy husk

and rendering the trial as illegal. Appellant acquitted.

29. In Jaswinder Singh and another vs. State of Punjab,

Criminal Appeal No. 682-SB of 2001, D/d 11.10.2012 , it has been

held by the Hon'ble High Court that sample drawn by DSP and sealed.

Seal after use not handed over to independent witness who was available

with the police. Seal kept by the DSP, but case property handed over to S.I..

So, there was every possibility of tampering with the samples and the case

property as the DSP is the supervisory officer of the concerned police

station. Conviction set aside, inter alia, on this ground.

30. In Dharambir vs. State, CRL.A No.658 of 2017, D/d

13.11.2018, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Denial

of right by accused. Search of person. Non compliance of provisions. In

view of case 2018 SCC On Line SC 459, mandates compliance with

Section 50, even in a case where accused denies facility of search by a

Gazetted Officer or in presence of a Magistrate. Held, search and seizure

of accused and car in which he was travelling, alleged recovery of opium,

there from, as well as all proceedings, consequent thereupon, stand vitiated

in toto. Therefore, conviction and sentence set aside.

31. In the present case, two accused namely Makhan Singh and

Rinku are facing trial U/s 22 of NDPS Act on the allegations that accused

Makhan Singh was found in illegal possession of 1800 intoxicant tablets

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 16 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

of Alprazolam having batch no.TPT-740 Mfd. Dated 11-2017 exp. Dated

10.2019 and accused Rinku was found in illegal possession of 1140

intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam having batch no. PCCAA-284 Mfd. Dated

10.2017 Ex. dated 09,2020 without any licence or permit on 30.01.2018

at about 4:15 P.M. in the area of Dirba.

32. As already stated above, the occurrence took place on

30.01.2018 when the police party was going from Dirba towards village

rogla Kauhriyan side. At about 4:15 P.M. in the revenue limits of Dirba

two persons were seen coming on foot from the side of drain while carrying

1/1 plastic lifafa (bag) in their right hand. On seeing the police party, he

became preplexed and tried to turn back. SI Jaspal Chand apprehended

them with the help of other police officials . Upon inquiry, they told their

names as Makhan Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village Lahal

Kaan, P.S.Moonak and Rinku son of Mithu resident of village Beharsahib,

P.S.Patran, District Patiala. PW-2 SI Jaspal Chand Investigating Officer

has proved the entire case. In his cross-examination conducted by learned

defence counsel accused Makhan Singh, he admitted that 178 Strips

related to accused Makhan were not sent to FSL for examination, only one

strip having 10 tablets was sent to FSL for examination. Place of recovery

is about 35/40 Kms. from CIA Staff. The accused disclosed the name of

the supplier namely Gaurav during the course of investigation. The police

never raided his house as the accused did not disclose the entire address of

the above said person. During his investigation the statement of owner of

any medical store or company were not recorded. During his inquiry it is
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 17 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

not ascertained about the strips to whom these were supplied to the medical

store or by which company or these were issued to which medical stroe or

dealer. Copies of grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused persons

at about 9:15 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. When non consent statement and consent

statement was recorded the lifafa bag was in the hand of the accused

persons. He admitted that DSP Yogesh Kumar Sharma is the circle

officer of P.S.Dirba on that day. This witness was cross-examined by

learned defence counsel of accused Rinku and has deposed recovery memo

was prepared at about 7:00 P.M.. They were having private car make

Tiyago. He did not remember the number of the vhicle was mentioned in

the DDR or not. The place of recovery is about ¾ Kms. From P.S.Dirba

towards easter side. They remained at the spot for about 6.15 hours. There

was no inverter fitted in their private car. Consent statement of accused

was recorded from 04:15 to 4:45 P.M. Accused persons were not known to

him earlier.

33. PW-3 SI Avtar Singh (recovery witness has also proved the

recovery effected from the accused. In his cross-examination he has stated

that ASI Jaspal Chand is complainant of the present case and investigation

of this cae was conducted by ASI Jaspal Chand. The memos and

statements of witnesses were typed by C.Gurpreet Singh as per dictation of

Jaspal Chand. The statement of C. Gurpreet Singh was got recorded by the

I.O. and it was typed by C. Gurpreet Singh himself.

34. PW-4 Inspector Pushpinder Singh has also proved the case of

prosecution in his examination in chief. In his cross-examination he has

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 18 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

stated that investigation regarding production of case property before him

was ASI Jaspal Chand and his statement was typed by C. Gurpreet Singh.

35. PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Sharma DSP has also proved the

prosecuton case in his examination in chief. In his cross-examination, he

has stated that he has received the information of this case at about 4:45

P.M. on his mobile phone bearing No.80545-45009. He admitted that as

per mobile location he was present in his office at Sular Gharat.

36. DW-1 Jagdev Singh in his examination in chief has stated that

he is numbardar of village Lehal Kalan from last 20 years. Accused

Makhan Singh belong to his village and he never involved any criminal

case . He is married person having two minor children. The house of

accused Makhan Singh is adjoining with the house of one lady namely

Sewal Kaur. ASI Randhir Singh was having illicit relation with said Sewa

Kaur. Due to this reason the atmosphere of the area is effected by the act

of Sewa Kaur and ASI Randhir Singh. Accused Makhan Singh stopped

ASI Randhir Singh from this act and due to this grudge, he has entangled

the accused Makhan Singh in the present case. In his cross-examination he

has stated that he cannot tell the date when the acused was arrested. No

resolution was passed by the village Panchayat with respect to the false

implciation of the accused Makhan Singh. No complaint was moved before

the SSP or hight police officials. No resolution was passed by the village

Panchayat that Sewa Kaur was having illicit relation with ASI Randhir

Singh.

37. DW-2 Satgur Singh has corroborated the statement of DW-1.

CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 19 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

In his cross-examination he has stated that accused Makhan Singh is his

uncle. He cannot tell the date when the accused was taken by the police.

He cannot tell from where the accused was arrested by the police. He

cannot tell whether the accused was arrested from his house. No resolution

was passed by the panchayat regarding the visit of ASI to the house of

Sewa Kaur.

38. The learned defence counsel during arguments brought to the

notice that in Ex.P24 chemical examiner report dated 25.04.2018 it is

mentioned that in reference number parcel bearing secret code no.005/2017

is mentioned. Learned defence counsel has argued that this FSL report is

not of this case as it is of the year 2017. this arguments of learned defence

counsel is without any force as in Subject FIR No.21 dated 30.01.2018

U/S 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, P.S.Dirba is mentioned and date of receipt is

shown as 06.02.2018. The learned Addl.PP has relied upon the case law

titled as Kasif vs. State NCT of Delhi, in which it is mentioned that

the discrepancy in mentioning of the car no.DL4CL-0332 instead of DL

6CC-0332 in the FSL report was held to be “ minor clerical mistake....

which is required to be ignored. So mentioning of secret code 005/2017 is

merely clerical mistake and report of FSL cannot be ignored.

39 The accused has examined DW-1 Jagdev Singh and DW-2

Satgur Singh to prove that the house of accused Makhan Singh is adjoining

with the house of one lady namely Sewa Kaur. ASI Randhir Singh was

having illicit relation with said Sewa Kaur. Accused Makhan Singh used

to stop ASI Randhir Singh and due to this reason accused Makhan Singh
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 20 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

has been involved in the present case. This defence has no use to the

accused persons as no application has been moved by accused with regard

to the conduct of ASI Randhir Singh before the higher officers. There is no

evidence led by the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the

present case.

40. Another point has been argued that the police party were on

private vehicle, but no entry in this regard is made in the DDR. PW-2 SI

Jaspal Chand in his examination in chief has got mentioned the vehicle

number as PB-13AV-2734 and number of the vehicle was also mentioned

in the report U/S 173 Cr.P.C., so there is no ground to acquit the accused on

this point. The recovery from both the accused has been moved moved

by PW-2 SI Jaspal Chand and PW-3 ASI Avtar Singh. Although there are

discrepancies in the cross-examination of these witnesses, but these

discrepancies are not of such nature from which it can be presumed that

a false case has been registered against both the accused. PW-6 DSP

Yogesh Kumar Sharma went to the spot at the time of recovery. He was

cross-examined at length, but there is no discrepancy which can show that

the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. So in view of

the fact that recovery agaisnt both the accused were proved by PW-2

Jaspal Chand, PW-3 ASI Avtar Singh and PW-6 DSP Yogesh Kumar

Sharma.

41. In this case, 180 Strips of Alprazol (each strip containing 10

tablets) were recovered from accused Makhan Singh. As per report of

FSL, the average weight of each tablet being 106 mg and each tablet
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 21 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

contained 0.45 mg of Alprazolam . Thus, the recovered 1800 tablets of

Alprazol would contain 190.8 gram of Alprazolam, which falls under

commercial range. In this case, 114 Strips of Alprazolam (each strip

containing 10 tablets) were recovered from the accused Rinku. As per

report of FSL, the average weight of each tablet being 122 mg and each

tablet contained 0.46 mg of Alprazolam . Thus, the recovered 1140

tablets of Alprazolam would contain 120.8 gram of Alprazolam, which

falls under commercial range. So it is clear that persons like the accused

are changing the fabric of youth of the country and they are selling the

drugs to the different people which is destroying the future of youth.

Accordingly, the accused Makhan Singh and Rinku stand convicted U/S

22 of NDPS Act. Let they be heard on the quantum of sentence in later part

of the day.

Pronounced in the open Court. (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

Dated : 09.07.2019 Judge Special Court,
Mamta Threja, Judgment-writer-I Sangrur.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 22 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

ORDER OF SENTENCE
Quantum of Sentence

Present: Shri Kanwardeep Singh Saini, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Convicts with counsel Sh.A.S.Grewal Advocate and
Sh.D.K.Arora Advocate. .

I have heard the convict and her counsel on the question of

sentence. The convicts have that they are only bread winner of their

respective family and have small children and prayed that lenient view be

taken. Keeping in view the quantity of contraband recovered from the

convict, which is of commercial range, the convict is sentenced as under

Makhan Singh U/S 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(one lac) and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo RI for two years.

Rinku U/S 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(one lac) and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo RI for two years.

The period of detention already consumed in jail by the

convict shall be deducted from the substantive sentence. The case property

be disposed of under rules after the expiry of period of appeal or revision, if

any. File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in the open Court. (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

09.07.2019 Judge Special Court,
Mamta Threja, Stengrapher-Gr.1 Sangrur.
CNR No. PBSG01-006991-2018 23 State vs. Makhan Singh
CIS No.344/2018

Present: Shri Kanwardeep Singh Saini Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State
Accused Makhan Singh on bail with counsel Sh.A.S.Grewal
Advocate.
Accused Rinku in custody with counsel Shri D.K.Arora
Advocate

Accused closed their defence evidence. Arguments heard. Vide

separate detailed judgment of even date, the accused are convicted U/S 22
of NDPS Act. File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced in the open Court.

(Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Dated : 09.07.2019 Judge Special Court,
Mamta Threja, Steno-Gr.1 Sangrur.

I attest to the
authenticity
of this
document
Digitally
MAMTA signed by
MAMTA
THREJA THREJA
Date:
2019.07.09
15:08:47
+0000