Ravi Inder Singh NDPS Conviction 1

State Vs.
Harcharan Singh and another 1 UID-PB0237
IN THE COURT OF RAVI INDER SINGH,

JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT; MANSA.
NDPS file No. 36 dated 13.04.2018,

CIS No.NDPS/76/2018
CNR No.PBMN01-001097-2018
Date of Decision: 25.08.2023.
State
Versus
1) Harcharan Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Sukhdev Singh,

resident of Ward No.18, Budhlada, District Mansa.
2) Jiwan Parkash alias Jony, aged about 26 years, son of Jagdish Rai,
resident of Ward No. 1, Budhlada, District Mansa.
3) Rajat Prashar, aged about 27 years, son of Jatinder Prashar, resident

of Ward No.12, Budhlada, District Mansa.
…Accused
FIR No. 113 dated 04.12.2017,

under Sections 21 & 22 of of the Narcotic Drugs
& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Police Station City Budhlada.
----
Present: Shri Jasvir Singh, Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Harcharan Singh on bail with Shri Raj Kamal
Sharma, Advocate.
Accused Jiwan Parkash on bail in this case but in custody in
some other case with Shri Harpreet Singh, Advocate.
Accused Rajat Prashar on bail with Shri Varinder Singla,
Advocate.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
Present case emanates from FIR No. 113 dated
04.12.2017, under Sections 21 & 22 of of the Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the NDPS Act'), Police
UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

State Vs. Harcharan Singh and another 2 UID-PB0237
Station City Budhlada. As per case of the prosecution on 4.12.2017, ASI
Pala Singh No. 592/Mansa alongwith ASI Jaskaran Singh No.257/Mansa,
HC Ginder Singh No. 317, Constable Tarsem Singh was going from main
road Budhlada Kalipur to Railway Station, Budhlada on his government
vehicle bearing No. PB-31H-3614. When they crossed about half
kilometer from the main road, they noticed that two persons were sitting
under the ‘kikker’ trees. One of the persons was carrying a envelope of
black colour and the second person was doing something while inserting
his hand in the said envelope. On the basis of suspicion, they were
apprehended. Upon asking the person carrying envelope who was clean
shaved revealed his name as Jiwan Parkash @ Jony @ Maou son of
Jagdish Rai, resident of Ward No.1, Baraha Nohre, Budhlada and the
second person revealed his name Harcharan Singh son of Sukhdev Singh,
resident of Ward No.18, Bhikhi road, Budhlada.
2. It is further case of the prosecution that ASI Pala Singh
informed those persons regarding their right to get search in the presence
of any Magistrate or Gazetted officer, however, they told him that they
had full faith upon him and he can conduct their search. Separate memo
was prepared to this effect. The police tried to join the private witness,
however, none was found. Some strips were visible through the envelope.
ASI Pala Singh checked the said envelope. Upon checking, 12 strips of
tablets make ALTIS-0.5 (Alprazolam), total 180 tablets were recovered.
Each strip was containing 15 tablets and were having Batch No. TATS-
1602, MFD. 11.2016, EXP. 10.2019. Another small plastic envelope was

found inside the said envelope from which intoxicating substance was
recovered. A computerized weighing machine like mobile phone and 50
small envelopes colour white was also recovered. A chit bearing MHC-
200G-0.01G over the computerized weighing machine was found pasted
on the computerized machine. Upon checking the weight, it came to 2
grams 50 miligram alongwith envelope. 12 strips of the tablets and
intoxicating powder alongwith black colour envelope were put into cloth
parcel. Another parcel of computerized weighing machine and 50 small
envelopes was prepared. Both the parcels were sealed with sample seal.
Separate sample seal was prepared which after use was handed over to
ASI Jaskaran Singh. Both the sealed parcels and sample seal were taken
into police possession vide separate memos. ASI Pala Singh conducted
the personal search of both the persons and personal search memo was
prepared. Ruqa was sent for registration of the case through C. Tarsem
Singh.
3. Thereafter, the rough site plan was prepared. Both the
persons were interrogated and arrested vide separate memos. Statements
of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Another DDR
No. 26 dated 4.12.2017 nominating accused Rajat Prasher alias Gikki son
of Jatinder Prasher, resident of Baran Nohre, Budhlada alongwith Car
bearing No. PB-31Q-2266 make Swift of white colour which was being
used by Rajat Prashar for bringing and selling narcotic and supplying
substance was registered. Both the accused, parcels containing contraband
and specimen seal was produced before the SHO concerned. Thereafter

another seal ‘BS’ was appended and separate sample seal was prepared.
The case property was deposited in the malkhana. On 5.12.2017,the
accused as well as the case property was produced before the learned
Illaqa Magistrate, inventory proceedings under Section 52A of the Act
were conducted in the Court. Thereafter the the samples were deposited
with the RTFSL, Bathinda through LC Amandeep Kaur No. 822/Mansa.
On 23.11.2017, accused Rajat Prasher was arrested and relevant memos
were prepared. Car bearing No. PB-31Q-2266 was taken into police
possession.
4. The report of RTFSL, Bathinda was received to the effect
that the contents in parcel-1 were found 20.25% Diacetymorphine and
the contents of parcel-2 were of Alprazolam, the average weight 155.08
mg/tablet. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.
P.C. was prepared against all three accused and presented in the Court.
COMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 207 CR.P.C AND CHARGE.
5. On presentation of challan, the copies of documents, as relied
upon by the prosecution were supplied to all the accused free of costs as
required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after finding a prima-facie case
against the accused charge under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act,
1985, was accordingly framed by the Court vide orders dated 02.07.2018
to which, all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the
prosecution was called to bring its evidence.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
Oral Evidence
PW1 LC Amandeep kaur No. 822/Mansa

PW2 ASI Harbans Singh No. 276/Mansa
PW3 Sukhdev Singh
PW4 ASI Jaskaran Singh (recovery witness)
PW5 Mukesh Kumar, Jr. Assistant, SDM, office, Mansa.
PW6 SI Prem Kumar No.61/Mansa
PW7 ASI Swaran Singh No.480/Mansa
PW8 MHC Darshan Singh No. 333/Mansa
PW9 Zanny Kath, Advocate
PW10 ASI Pala Singh (Investigating officer)
PW11 Retired Inspector Balwinder Singh
Documentary Evidence
Ex.PW1/A Affidavit of LC Amandeep Kaur

Mark-A Affidavit regarding Swift Car
Ex. PW2/A Recovery memo of Car and affidavit
Ex. PW2/B Personal search memo of accused
Ex.PW2/C Arrest memo of accused
Ex.PW3/A Affidavit bearing signatures of Sukhdev Singh stamp
vendor
Ex. PW3/B Copy of relevant entry No.10822 of register
Ex. PW4/A Consent memo of both accused
Ex. PW4/B Recovery memo of case property etc.
Ex.PW4/C Personal search memo of accused Jiwan Parkash
Ex.PW4/D Personal search memo of accused Harcharan Singh
Ex.PW4/E Arrest memo of both accused
Ex.PW5/A Computer generated Record of Car in question
Ex. PW8/A Copy of entry No.626 of 04.12.2017 of register No.19
Ex. PW8/B Copy of entry No.630 of 23.12.2017 of register No.19
Ex. PW8/C Copy of entry No.18 of 04.12.2017 of register No.19

Ex. PW8/D Copy of entry No.20 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register

Ex. PW8/E Copy of entry No.26 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/F Copy of entry No.27 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/G Copy of entry No.35 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/H Copy of entry No.35 of 23.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex.PW10/A Ruqa
Ex.PW10/B Formal FIR
Ex.PW10/C Site plan of the spot
Ex. PW10/D Handing over memo
Ex.PW10/E Destroy of both the parcels vide orders 31.5.2019.
Ex.PW11/A Endorsement on FIR
Ex.P1 Sample seal chit
Ex. PW11/B Inventory report
Ex.PW11/C Application for deposit of bulk parcel in judicial malkhana
Ex. PW11/D Application for disposing of the case property
Ex.PW11/E Court order
Ex.PW11/F Special report to DSP Sub Division, Budhlada
Ex.PW11/G Photographs
Ex. PW11/H DDR No. 26 of 4.12.2017
Ex. PY Report of RTFSL Bathinda
Ex. PX Form No.29
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C
6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which, all the
incriminating evidence appearing against them on the judicial file was put
to them, but they have denied all the allegations against them and have
pleaded their innocence and false implication by the police in this case.
However, accused led no defence evidence.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION
i) Whether on on 4.12.2017, at about 10L15 AM, in the

area of Budhlada, accused Harcharan Singh and Jiwan
Parkash were found in conscious possession of 2 grams 50
mg smack containing Diacetylmorphine without any permit
or license?
ii) Whether on the same date, time and place, accused
Harcharan Singh and Jiwan Parkash were found in
possession of 180 tablets of Alprazolam without any permit
or license?
iii) Whether in the year 2017, accused Rajat Prashar was
found involved in selling of Heroin while carrying heroin in
his Car bearing No. PB-31Q-2266?
iv) Whether in the year 2017, accused Rajat Prashar was
found involved in selling of Alprazolam tablets while
carrying Alprazolam tablets in his Car bearing No. PB-31Q-
2266?
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the testimonies
of official witnesses which includes Investigating Officer and witnesses
of recovery memo duly proved case of the prosecution against all the
accused and they be convicted accordingly.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
8. Learned defence counsel Shri Raj Kamal Sharma, Advocate
representing the accused Harcharan Singh and Shri Harpreet Singh
representing counsel for Jiwan Parkash have pointed out following

lacunae in the case of the prosecution:
i) Whereas it is the case of the prosecution that sample seals

‘PS’ and ‘BS’ were appended on the parcels, however
specimen seal ‘BS” was not produced in the Court.
ii) In documents Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/D the column after
word ‘seal’ have been left blank;
iii) In the inventory order dated 5.12.2017 Ex. PW11/E, there is
no reference of seal of ‘PS’ and no reference of sample seal;
iv) In the report of RTFSL Ex. PX, there is only mention of seal
of ‘BS’;
v) ASI Jaskaran Singh in his examination-in-chief has stated
that both the parcels alongwith sample chit were taken into
police possession, however, no such sample chit has come on
record;
vi) No independent witness has been examined;
vii) Statement of PW7 is in contradictions in the statement of
PW1 Amandeep Kaur;
viii) PW4 ASI Jaskaran Singh is silent regarding batch numbers
whereas PW10 recovery witness has deposed regarding the
batch number.
ix) In handing over memo Ex.PW10/D, the FIR number bears
under line sign which shows that it was earlier kept blank;
x) There is no mention of batch number in Form No.29 in the
recovery memo and Court orders;
Further relying upon the following judgments, the learned
defence counsels have prayed for acquitting all the accused.
i) Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab, CRA-S No.

2333-SB of 2017 (O&M), decided on 18.5.2019;
ii) Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh and others
vs. State of Punjab, CRA-D No.676-DB of 2010,

CRA-D No.737-DB of 2010 and CRA-S No.2344-SB

of 2010, decided on 8.2.2019;
iii) Satnam Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRA-S No.
995-SB of 2004 (O&M), decided on 2.8.2019;
9. Shri Varinder Kumar Singla, Advocate appearing for accused
Rajat Prashar has pointed out the following lacunae in the case of the
prosecution:
i) There is no disclosure statement on record

showing that accused Rajat Prashar was named by
the other accused;
ii) PW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that
there is no document on judicial file on the basis of
DDR entry has been made by him against Rajat
Prashar;
iii) PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that no
proceeding against accused Rajat Prashar was
conducted by him or in his presence;
iv) PW10 has stated that accused Rajat Prashar was
not nominated by him in the present case;
v) PW11 Inspector Balwinder Singh has stated in
his cross-examination that except making rapat, he
did not conduct any investigation against accused
Rajat Prashar;
Appreciation of evidence
10. Heard. File gone through. LC Amandeep Kaur while
appearing as PW1 has tendered her affidavit Ex. PW1/A in her
examination-in-chief wherein she has deposed regarding the factum of
depositing of sample parcels in the office of RTFSL, Bathinda against

proper receipt and thereafter handing over the receipt to SHO Balwinder
Singh;
11. ASI Harbans Singh while appearing as PW2 has deposed to
the effect that on 23.12.2017, he was posted at police station City
Budhlada. On that day, Darshan Singh son of Hardial Singh produced
accused Rajat Prashar before him. Accused produced Swift Car bearing
registration No. PB-31Q-2266 before him. On search of the Car, one
affidavit Mark A was recovered. The car and the affidavit was taken into
police possession vide memo Ex. PW2/A and personal search of accused
was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B. Accused was arrested vide memo
Ex. PW2/C. The memos were attested by C. Jagraj Singh. The Car is
MO1.
12. Sukhdev Singh while appearing as PW3 has deposed
regarding affidavit Ex.PW3/A and identified his signatures over the same
and stated that he sold one stamp paper vide entry No. 10822 to Jatinder
Prashar son of Krishan Dutt Sharma, resident of Budhlada. He has
brought the original register of entry and proved the attested copy of the
same as Ex. PW3/B.
13. ASI Jaskaran Singh while appearing as PW4 has deposed
regarding the factum of he being the member of police party headed by
ASI Pala Singh on the relevant date. He has further deposed on the lines
of the case of the prosecution regarding recovery from the accused and
arrest of accused. He has specifically deposed regarding the following
documents:

Ex. PW4/A Consent memo of both accused

Ex. PW4/B Recovery memo of case property etc.
Ex.PW4/C Personal search memo of accused Jiwan Parkash
Ex.PW4/D Personal search memo of accused Harcharan Singh
Ex.PW4/E Arrest memo of both accused
14. Mukesh Kumar while appearing as PW5 has brought the
summoned record pertaining to vehicle Swift VDI bearing registration
No. PB-31Q-2266 which is in the name of Jatinder Prashar son of Krishan
Dutt, resident of Budhlada and proved the computer generated record of
said car as Ex. PW5/A.
15. SI Prem Kumar while appearing as PW6 has deposed that on
24.3.2018, he received the investigation of the present case. He recorded
the statement of HC Swaran Singh on 24.3.2018 and statement of RC
Clerk Gurkirat Singh of the office of SDM, Mansa on 09.04.2018 and
obtained verification of the Car bearing No. PB-31Q-2266.
16. ASI Swaran Singh while appearing as PW7 has deposed that
on 7.12.2017, he was posted at Secret Cell, office of SSP, Mansa. On that
day, SI Balwinder Singh SHO of PS City Budhlada produced before him
sample and Form No.29, on which he affixed number 842/SC dated
7.12.2017. Thereafter, SI Balwinder Singh sealed the parcel with his seal
bearing impression ‘BS’ after putting the sample and Form No.29 in the
cloth. Thereafter, the seal impression of ‘DPO’ was affixed on the said
parcel and was handed over to SI Balwinder Singh, SHO.
17. MHC Darshan Singh while appearing as PW8 has brought
the summoned record of register No.19 and DDR register of P.S. City

Budhlada and proved the following documents:
Ex. PW8/A Copy of entry No.626 of 04.12.2017 of register No.19

Ex. PW8/B Copy of entry No.630 of 23.12.2017 of register No.19
Ex. PW8/C Copy of entry No.18 of 04.12.2017 of register No.19
Ex. PW8/D Copy of entry No.20 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/E Copy of entry No.26 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/F Copy of entry No.27 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/G Copy of entry No.35 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register
Ex. PW8/H Copy of entry No.35 of 23.12.2017 of DDR register
18. Zanny Kath, Advocate while appearing as PW9 has deposed
that he is working as notary public at Civil Courts, Budhlada. On
21.11.2017, Jatinder Prashar son of Krishan Dutt Sharma produced one
affidavit already exhibited as Ex. PW3/A before him which he attested the
same and he identified his signatures at point A.
19. ASI Pala Singh while appearing as PW10 has proved
relevant aspects of the investigation conducted by him in this case and has
specifically deposed regarding the following documents:
Ex.PW10/A Ruqa
Ex.PW10/B Formal FIR
Ex.PW10/C Site plan of the spot
Ex. PW10/D Handing over memo
Ex.PW10/E Disposal of both the parcels vide orders 31.5.2019
20. Retired Inspector Balwinder Singh while appearing as PW11
has deposed that on 4.12.2017, he was posted as ASHO at PS City
Budhlada. He has received ruqa from C. Tarsem Singh sent by ASI Pala
Singh and after going through the contents of ruqa, he registered the FIR

Ex. PW10/B and made the endorsement Ex. PW11/A. He has further
deposed on the lines of the case of the prosecution regarding production
of both accused before him, conducting of personal search in his presence
and affixing his seal bearing seal ‘BS’ on the parcels and sample seal. He
further deposed regarding DDR No. 26 dated 4.12.2017, whereas accused
Rajat Prashar was nominated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. He has
further deposed regarding production of case property before the learned
Illaqa Magistrate and specifically deposed regarding the following
documents:
Ex. PW10/A FIR

Ex.PW11/A Endorsement on FIR
Ex.P1 Sample seal chit
Ex. PW11/B Inventory report
Ex.PW11/C Application for deposit of bulk parcel in judicial malkhana
Ex. PW11/D Application for disposing of the case property
Ex.PW11/E Court order regarding proceedings u/s 52A NDPS Act
Ex.PW11/F Special report to DSP Sub Division, Budhlada
Ex.PW11/G Photographs
Ex. PW11/H DDR No. 26 of 4.12.2017
Ex. PY Report of RTFSL Bathinda
Ex. PX Form No.29
21. Since, separate arguments have been addressed on behalf
of accused Harcharan Singh and Jiwan Parkash on the one hand and
accused Rajat Prasher on the other hand, it would be appropriate to
discuss both the facts of arguments qua these accused separately.
Evidence against accused Rajat Prashar
22. Dealing firstly with the evidence qua accused Rajat

Prashar, it is pertinent to note that the said accused was not arrested at the
spot and was nominated in this case later on vide DDR No. 26 dated
4.12.2017 on the allegations that he used his Car bearing No. PB-31Q-
2266 make Swift of white colour for bringing and selling narcotics and
supplying the same. A perusal of the evidence on record brings forth the
following relevant facts:
i) There is no disclosure statement on record

showing that accused Rajat Prashar was named by
the other accused;
ii) PW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that
there is no document on judicial file on the basis of
DDR entry has been made by him against Rajat
Prashar;
iii) PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that no
proceeding against accused Rajat Prashar was
conducted by him or in his presence;
iv) PW10 has stated that accused Rajat Prashar was
not nominated by him in the present case;
v) PW11 Inspector Balwinder Singh has stated in
his cross-examination that except making rapat, he
did not conduct any investigation against accused
Rajat Prashar;
23. Hence, there is neither any concrete document in the
shape of any disclosure statement against accused Rajat Prasher nor any
other credible evidence to link accused Rajat Prasher either with the
recovery in the present case or regarding the fact that the said accused
used his Car bearing No. PB-31Q-2266 for bringing and selling narcotics.

Therefore, the points No. (iii) and (iv) are decided in negative and against
the prosecution and it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case against accused Rajat Prasher Singh beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence against accused Harcharan Singh and Jiwan Parkash
24. Now dealing with the evidence qua other two accused
Hrcharan Singh and Jiwan Parkash, the Court finds that the evidence qua
recovery of the contraband finds due support from the testimony of
investigating officer ASI Pala Singh (PW10) and the testimony of
recovery witnesses ASI Jaskaran Singh (PW4). The defence has
challenged such factum of recovery while relying upon certain lacunae in
the case of the prosecution. It is argued that ASI Jaskaran Singh has stated
in his examination-in-chief that both the parcels alongwith sample seal
chits were taken into police possession, however, no such sample seal
chits has come on record. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court in
Sandeep Kumar’s case (supra). A perusal of the said judgment shows that
the Hon’ble High court did not set-aside the judgment of the conviction
and order of sentence solely on this ground but there were other reasons
also as detailed in the para No. 16 of the said judgment. In the present
matter, the effect of such non-production of sample seal chits is to be
considered while taking into consideration the overall evidence that has
come on record. Therefore, merely on this count, the entire case of the
prosecution cannot be thrown out.
25. The next argument of the defence is that PW4 ASI

Jaskaran Singh is silent regarding the batch number over the strips
whereas PW10 ASI Pala Singh has deposed regarding the batch number.
A perusal of the evidence of PW10 shows that he has clearly stated
regarding ALTIS 0.5 Alprazolam tablets having batch number TATS1602,
manufacturing date November, 2016, expiry date October, 2019. The said
version is in consonance with the case of the prosecution as recorded in
the FIR which also mentions batch number, date of manufacturing and
date of expiry of such tablets. Merely because PW4 has not stated in that
regard is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW10 ASI Pala Singh,
investigating officer when no such suggestion was put by the defence to
PW4 that such tablets were not bearing batch number.
26. Another argument of the defence is that there is no
mention of batch number in Form No.29, in the recovery memo and in the
Court orders. This argument of the defence is liable to be rejected for the
reason that it has nowhere mentioned in Form No.29 or recovery memo or
the Court orders that the tablets in question were in loose form nor any
objection as been taken on behalf of the accused while conducting
inventory proceedings that the tablets do not having any batch number
whereas the FIR mentioned the batch number.
27. The defence has challenged the handing over memo Ex.
PW10/D on the ground that the FIR bearing under line sign which shows
that it was earlier kept blank. This argument does not finds favour with
this Court as this document has been duly proved on record by the
testimony of investigating officer ASI Pala Singh as well as PW11 retired

Inspector Balwinder Singh.
28. The defence has further challenged the document
Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D on the ground that column after word ‘seal’
has been left blank. A perusal of the both these documents shows that
infact, the name of seal is missing in both these documents, however it is
to be considered that the said document pertains to deposit of case
property in the judicial malkhana and orders concerning disposal of the
case property. As per evidence of PW11, he filed these applications before
the learned Illaqa Magistrate. A perusal of Court order Ex. PW11/E shows
that there is clear reference of seal in the said order and therefore the non-
mentioning of seal in the aforesaid document does not go to the roots of
the case of the prosecution.
29. Another argument of defence is that in the inventory order
and report of RTFSL, there is no mention of seal ‘PS’. This argument is to
be considered in the light of the fact that Inspector Balwinder Singh the
then SHO PS City Budhlada has appended his own seal ‘BS’ on both the
parcels and samples and inventory order Ex. PW11/E mentions this seal
impression. Moreover, the application for inventory proceedings Ex.
PW11/B clearly make reference os both seals of ‘PS’ and ‘BS’. Coming
to the Form No.29, it mentions seal ‘APS’ which is seal of the Court after
conducting inventory proceedings. The defence has also raised argument
that the specimen seal ‘BS’ was not produced before the Court. The Court
order Ex. PW11/E regarding conducting of proceedings under Section
52A NDPS Act does not reflect this position. No such discrepancy has

been noted in the said proceedings. Therefore such points having not been
raised before the said learned Court, this Court has no reason to hold that
the inventory proceedings are faulty on this count. Therefore, there is no
good ground to doubt these relevant documents.
30. This Court does not find any material contradiction in the
statement of PW7 when analyzed with the evidence of PW1 LC
Amandeep Kaur which affects the root of the case of the prosecution.
31. Now coming to the objection of the defence regarding
non-joining of independent witness, it is well settled law that factum of
non-joining of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution, if the other evidence available on record is cogent and
convincing. The only precaution which the Court has to take, in such
circumstances, is to appreciate the other evidence with more care and
caution. Therefore, non-joining of independent witness cannot be termed
as fatal to the case of the prosecution when no such finding has been
returned by the Court that the evidence on record is not cogent and
convincing.
32. Except the aspect of sample seal chits, this Court does
not find any major discrepancy in the case of the prosecution. In none of
the judgments relied upon by the defence, it has been held that the entire
case of the prosecution is to be disbelieved merely on the ground of non-
production of seal seal chits. It was one of the factors discussed by the
Hon’ble High court in peculiar facts of this case. In the present case,
except that part, this Court finds the evidence of prosecution cogent,

convincing and credible regarding the factum of recovery as well as
proceedings conducted thereafter.
33. Moreover, the accused have failed to even plead specific
reason due to which they claim to have been implicated falsely nor they
have taken any plea of alibi nor any evidence has been led to this effect.
They have failed to rebut the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS
Act. Therefore, this Court finds no good ground to disbelieve the
evidence of the prosecution qua accused Harcharan Singh and Jiwan
Parkash. On the basis of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the
factum of recovery of 2 grams 50 mg smack containing
Diacetylomorphine as well as 180 tablets ALTIS-0.5 (Alprazolam)
containing salt Alprazolam (total weight of which comes to 27.91 grams
which is less than 100 grams and falls under non-commercial quantity)
from both the accused Harcharan Singh and Jiwan Parkash, is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, points No. (i) and (ii) of
determination are decided in favour of prosecution.
34. In view of findings, accused Rajat Prashar stands
acquitted, whereas accused Harcharan Singh and Jiwan Prkash @ Jony
stand convicted for offences under Sections 21(a) and 22 (b) of the
NDPS Act. They both be taken into custody and be produced on
28.08.2023 for hearing on the question of sentence.
Pronounced on:25.08.2023 (Ravi Inder Singh)

(Parveen Kumar) Judge, Special Court,
Mansa.
UID No. PB0237.

IN THE COURT OF RAVI INDER SINGH,

JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT; MANSA.
NDPS file No. 36 dated 13.04.2018,

CIS No.NDPS/76/2018
CNR No.PBMN01-001097-2018
Date of order: 28.08.2023.
State
Versus
1) Harcharan Singh, aged about 34 years, so of Sukhdev Singh,

resident of Ward No.18, Budhlada, District Mansa.
2) Jiwan Parkash alias Jony, aged about 26 years, son of Jagdish Rai,
resident of Ward No. 1, Budhlada, District Mansa.
…Convict
FIR No. 113 dated 04.12.2017,

under Sections 21 & 22 of of the Narcotic Drugs
& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Police Station City Budhlada.
----
QUESTION OF SENTENCE:-
Present: Shri Jasvir Singh, Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Harcharan Singh in custody, with Shri Raj Kamal
Sharma, Advocate.
Convict Jiwan Parkash @ Jony in custody, with Shri Harpreet
Singh, Advocate.
This order is being passed in continuation of the Judgment of
conviction dated 25.08.2023 passed by this Court.
2. The convict Harcharan Singh has taken the following plea in
the Court :
‘”Stated that I have no previous criminal antecedents during

pendency of this case. Even, I was not involved or indulged
in such kind of offence. My parents are old aged and who

used to remain ill. I have two school going sons. I am the

only breadwinner of my family. Except me, there is no one in
the family to look after my family. Kindly lenient and
reformative view may be kindly while awarding sentence to
me”.
3. The convict Jiwan Parkash @ Jony has taken the following
plea in the Court :
‘”Stated that I am unmarried. I have old aged parents at

home. There is no one in the family to look after them. I am
first offender. Lenient view may kindly be taken while
awarding sentence to me”.
4. Learned counsel for the convict Harcharan Singh prayed for
taking lenient view in the matter while imposing sentence as convict
Harcharan Singh has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for
convict Jiwan Parkash has also requested for taking lenient view
considering the family circumstances of the convict.
5. Heard. Pleas taken by both the convict gone through. Taking
into consideration the plea of convict Harcharan Singh, his family
circumstances and the fact that he is having no previous criminal
antecedents and the conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act in this
case is involving small quantity and conviction under Section 22 of the
NDPS act involves intermediate quantity, convict Harcharan Singh is
ordered to be sentenced in the following terms:

Under Section Sentence

21(a) of the NDPS Rigorous Imprisonment for a
Act
period of 1 year (one year) and
to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of
Harcharan Singh three months.
22(b)of the NDPS Rigorous Imprisonment for a
Act
period of 3 years (three years)
and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-
and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo Rigorous
six months.
6. However, taking into consideration the criminal antecedents
of the convict Jiwan Parkash as the jail warrant shows that he is presently
in custody in another case FIR No.91 dated 24.7.2023 under section 21(a)
of the NDPS Act Police Station City Budhlada, he is ordered to be
sentence in the following terms:
Jiwan Parkash Under Section Sentence

21(a) of the NDPS Rigorous Imprisonment for a
Act
period of 1 year (one year) and
to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo Rigorous
three months.
22(b) of the NDPS Rigorous Imprisonment for a
Act

period of 5 years (five years)

and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-
and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo Rigorous
six months.
7. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of
detention already undergone by both the convict during inquiry,
investigation and trial of this case, shall be set off from the substantive
sentence of imprisonment. The case property, if any, be disposed of as per
rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision and if filed, subject to the
decision thereof.
8. Copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced on:28.08.2023 (Ravi Inder Singh)

(Parveen Kumar) Judge, Special Court,
Mansa.
UID No. PB0237.
PARVEEN Digitally signed by
PARVEEN KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2023.08.28 17:27:19

+0530

State Vs. Harcharan Singh and others

Ravi Inder Singh NDPS Conviction 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ravi Inder Singh NDPS Conviction 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Vs.

Harcharan Singh and another 1 UID-PB0237

IN THE COURT OF RAVI INDER SINGH,

NDPS file No. 36 dated 13.04.2018,

1) Harcharan Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Sukhdev Singh,

3) Rajat Prashar, aged about 27 years, son of Jatinder Prashar, resident

FIR No. 113 dated 04.12.2017,

04.12.2017, under Sections 21 & 22 of of the Narcotic Drugs &

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

Station City Budhlada. As per case of the prosecution on 4.12.2017, ASI

Pala Singh No. 592/Mansa alongwith ASI Jaskaran Singh No.257/Mansa,

road Budhlada Kalipur to Railway Station, Budhlada on his government

vehicle bearing No. PB-31H-3614. When they crossed about half

shaved revealed his name as Jiwan Parkash @ Jony @ Maou son of

resident of Ward No.18, Bhikhi road, Budhlada.

2. It is further case of the prosecution that ASI Pala Singh

tablets make ALTIS-0.5 (Alprazolam), total 180 tablets were recovered.

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

recovered. A computerized weighing machine like mobile phone and 50

200G-0.01G over the computerized weighing machine was found pasted

on the computerized machine. Upon checking the weight, it came to 2

grams 50 miligram alongwith envelope. 12 strips of the tablets and

parcel. Another parcel of computerized weighing machine and 50 small

3. Thereafter, the rough site plan was prepared. Both the

persons were interrogated and arrested vide separate memos. Statements

of Jatinder Prasher, resident of Baran Nohre, Budhlada alongwith Car

substance was registered. Both the accused, parcels containing contraband

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

The case property was deposited in the malkhana. On 5.12.2017,the

Illaqa Magistrate, inventory proceedings under Section 52A of the Act

with the RTFSL, Bathinda through LC Amandeep Kaur No. 822/Mansa.

On 23.11.2017, accused Rajat Prasher was arrested and relevant memos

4. The report of RTFSL, Bathinda was received to the effect

that the contents in parcel-1 were found 20.25% Diacetymorphine and

the contents of parcel-2 were of Alprazolam, the average weight 155.08

mg/tablet. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.

COMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 207 CR.P.C AND CHARGE.

5. On presentation of challan, the copies of documents, as relied

prosecution was called to bring its evidence.

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

PW1 LC Amandeep kaur No. 822/Mansa

Ex.PW1/A Affidavit of LC Amandeep Kaur

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

Ex. PW8/D Copy of entry No.20 of 04.12.2017 of DDR register

STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C

6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of

However, accused led no defence evidence.

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

i) Whether on on 4.12.2017, at about 10L15 AM, in the

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

of official witnesses which includes Investigating Officer and witnesses

accused and they be convicted accordingly.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

8. Learned defence counsel Shri Raj Kamal Sharma, Advocate

representing the accused Harcharan Singh and Shri Harpreet Singh

representing counsel for Jiwan Parkash have pointed out following

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa

lacunae in the case of the prosecution:

i) Whereas it is the case of the prosecution that sample seals

Further relying upon the following judgments, the learned

defence counsels have prayed for acquitting all the accused.

i) Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab, CRA-S No.

UID-PB0237 Ravi Inder Singh,JSC/Mansa